On Thursday, August 2, 2012 12:14:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Yes, but it is actually via YAML file. It will read in, eg.
---
revision: 1
...
Then when it does a `Main.load` on the file, it will look for the
`revision` field and determine which version of the API to use.
> 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.
>
Adding some convenience, nice. I like autoload too, but word has it, it is
being deprecated (albeit in the distant future).
-- 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
