On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 07:30, Tomas Matousek
tomas.matou...@microsoft.com wrote:
That's absolutely true for arbitrary CLR types. Library types
(those marked by RubyClass attribute) are handled differently
though. They can be seen like collections of extension methods.
So it makes sense to
Hi
I thought I created a ruby module and ruby class but I must be doing
something wrong.
using RubyMethodAttributes=IronRuby.Runtime.RubyMethodAttributes;
using RubyModuleDefinition = IronRuby.Runtime.RubyModuleAttribute;
using RubyClassDefinition = IronRuby.Runtime.RubyClassAttribute;
using
Any reason why you don’t prefer to work with RubyController class directly from
Ruby code?
…
class RubyController
def info
view_data.add(“Platform”, “IronRuby Mvc 1.0”)
end
end
Tomas
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of
That is what I'm doing now
The other question was out of curiosity :)
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Tomas Matousek tomas.matou...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Any reason why you don't prefer to work with RubyController class
directly from Ruby code?
…
class RubyController
def info
I just checked in a somewhat working implementation of asp.net mvc and
IronRuby.
It is also much faster than I expected. There is no support for filters and
the likes yet but you should be able to define controllers.
It should also be able to recognize controller actions and controller files
by
Good ☺.
BTW: Do you load the library using load_assembly assembly-name, namespace?
E.g.
load_assembly 'IronRuby.Libraries', 'IronRuby.StandardLibrary.Sockets'
Just requiring the assembly loads it as regular .NET assembly w/o invoking
IronRuby library loader.
Tomas
From:
