On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Darryl L. Pierce <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:36:35PM -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > So my general thought is that we should focus on the messenger stuff > first > > for high level languages like Ruby. The main reason being that the lower > > level interfaces might want to get tweaked a bit more for performance > > reasons, whereas the messenger interface itself is higher level and > > therefore less likely to change. So given that the point of this is that > > it's a stable API, that is really the most stable place to start. I also > > think in a lot of ways the other stuff is distracting for a language like > > python or ruby and not as interesting to those communities. > > > > I took a look at the messenger example and I'm a little surprised not to > > see Messenger and Message exposed as objects. Granted the bindings are > > procedural because the C API is procedural, but they're pretty much > begging > > to be exposed as objects. As they are it looks like you still need to do > > manual memory management, I would think by mapping the procedures into > > methods on Messenger and Message objects and by tying pn_messenger_free > and > > pn_message_free into the respective destructors, we could make things a > > whole lot safer, e.g. avoid dangling pointers and the like that a user > > could use to segfault the interpreter. > > Okay, I get what you're saying there. I'll switch gears at this point > and tackle a Messenger/Message framework for Ruby. > Cool, looking forward to it. > Regarding cucumber, this is the first I've seen of or heard of it. My > initial reaction could probably be described as mildly skeptical by someone > prone to extreme understatement, but I'll try to keep an open mind and read > up on it sometime soon. ;-) I would definitely like to hear your feedback after looking at the > Cucumber website. It's a great framework that other teams I know use > regularly. We also have such tests in the old Qpid Ruby bindings as > well. > Thanks, I'll check those out. It will be good to see it in a familiar context. --Rafael
