On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Intransition <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, that's the traditional factory approach. I actually would not want to
> use "MainFactory", as don't want it to be explicit. But it occurs to me that
> I could have redefined `Main.new` as a factory method and done it that way.
> And the more I think about it the more that seems like a better approach. It
> would work well for Main as well as other classes within it.
It seems that in your case the caller decides on the version. Is that correct?
What about this?
file mylib.rb:
module MyLib
# manual
autoload :V0 'mylib/v0'
autoload :V1 'mylib/v1'
# generated
%w{V0 V1}.each do |ver|
autoload ver.to_sym "mylib/#{ver.downcase}"
end
# the default
Default = V1
# to make access to the current version easy:
def self.const_missing(c)
Default.const_get(c)
end
end
and in mylib/v0 etc.
module MyLib
module V0
class Main; end
end
end
Usage
# current
m = MyLib::Main.new(...)
# explicit
m = MyLib::V0::Main.new(...)
The const_missing trick works only if there are no name conflicts, of course.
Kind regards
robert
--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
ruby-talk-google group. To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email
to [email protected]. For more options, visit this
group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/ruby-talk-google?hl=en
