Oh, I almost forgot; thanks for being so awesome, Tomas :). Ruby is an
absolute joy to program in, and having IronRuby means I don't have to choose
between .NET and Ruby - I get the best of both worlds. None of that would
have been possible without your contributions and dedication to the project.
In spite of Microsoft's stance on the future of IronRuby, I hope we can
carry it forward as a stable, reliable implementation.
Thanks,
-Charles
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Tomas Matousek <
tomas.matou...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I think it makes sense to add an overload for load_assembly that takes
> Assembly object instead of name. Charles, feel free to submit a patch or
> file a bug to trace the feature request and I‘ll get to it soon.
>
>
>
> Tomas
>
>
>
> *From:* ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:
> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Charles Strahan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:04 AM
> *To:* ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ironruby-core] Should Kernel.require accept Assembly
> instances?
>
>
>
> Orion,
>
> Yes, I can use Assembly.LoadFrom to load an assembly from a path (and I am
> doing that), but that's not *all* I want to do. I think the easiest way to
> communicate my intentions is to ask you the following question:
>
> Q: What happens when I call Kernel.load_assembly in IronRuby, provided I
> pass in some assembly name?
>
> A: Modules are created that reflect the types and namespaces within the
> assembly (::System::InteropServices, ::System::Reflection::Assembly, etc).
>
> That's the effect I want. If I just use Assembly.LoadFrom, IronRuby will
> not treat that the same way as Kernel.load_assembly, nor should it.
>
> Do you see where I'm going with this?
>
>
> I thought I had found a way to hack around this by getting to the current
> context with this little hack:
>
> # ::Object is an instance of RubyClass, which holds a reference to the
> RubyContext within which it was created.
> # However, IronRuby hides the Context property, so you can't do
> Object.context, Kernel.context, etc (which is a good thing).
> # But, with a little reflection (and because I know Context really is
> there), I can do the following:
> context = Object.GetType.get_members.find { |m| m.name == 'Context'
> }.get_value(Object, nil)
>
> And then I figured I could do something like this:
> context.loader.load_assembly(...)
>
> ... but the overload I need is marked private (the one that is public
> expects a string containing the assembly's name, as opposed to path). I
> suppose I could use reflection again, but it wouldn't work without full
> trust. It was a cool idea, nonetheless.
>
> -Charles
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Orion Edwards <orion.edwa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm looking through the MSDN docs for assembly loading, and it seems as
> though you can either load an assembly from a path, or from a byte array.
> Both of these methods return an Assembly object.
>
>
>
> There doesn't appear to be any other way to actually get an Assembly object
> other than by loading it, as the constructor is protected (assembly is
> abstract), and the only classes that I can see in the framework that derive
> from it are the internal RuntimeAssembly class (which is used for everything
> pretty much), and System.Reflection.Emit.AssemblyBuilder.
>
>
>
> As far as I can infer, the only way to actual get an assembly object is to
> load the assembly, so if you're asking how you can load an assembly given an
> Assembly object... it's already loaded.
>
>
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Charles Strahan <
> charles.c.stra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Those are valid points. Perhaps #load_assembly could accept an assembly
> reference.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Orion Edwards <orion.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What's the advantage to extending require?
>
> Presumably you're currently using the .NET Assembly.Load or
> Assembly.LoadFrom methods to do this? (And if you're compiling code in
> memory, you'll certainly be making heavy use of the .NET reflection API's
> already anyway)
>
> Require is a standard part of core ruby, and is meant to take paths.
> While it's obvious to overload it to accept paths to dll's as well as rb
> files, overloading it to take non-path things (such as .NET assembly
> objects) seems like it's diverging a bit too far away from it's normal (ie:
> MRI ruby) use, and more into the realms of specific .NET extensions...
>
>
> On 7/08/2010, at 10:08 AM, Charles Strahan wrote:
>
> What would you all think of having the ability to require a given Assembly?
> I think this could be useful when compiling code in memory, in which case
> there isn't a path to give Kernel.require.
>
> If this is something we could all use, I'll open a ticket for it.
>
> -Charles
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
