On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, David Corbin defenestrated me:
> On Wednesday 15 March 2006 09:02 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> > including a module at the root level actually ends up including it into
> > Object, because all code runs within the context of a global Object
> > instance.
>
> Are you describ
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 09:02 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> including a module at the root level actually ends up including it into
> Object, because all code runs within the context of a global Object
> instance.
Are you describing jruby , or ruby (or both). It makes no sense to me why
incl
including a module at the root level actually ends up including it into Object, because all code runs within the context of a global Object instance. Calling include at root is actually like calling the private "include" method on the Object class, adding that module's capabilities to all Object in
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 08:58 am, Thomas E Enebo wrote:
> Ding! Any object that already exists in Ruby will get called
> before a method_missing. I am thinking about options. Yours is
> probably a pretty decent one...
I still don't understand. Can you respond to my earlier response?
>
>
Tom touched on this, but it's because when we include a module into Object, its methods are then available to not only all code at the root level but to all classes that extend Object (i.e. all classes period). Because the method will now exist in ArrayList's hierarchy, method_missing never fires,
Ding! Any object that already exists in Ruby will get called
before a method_missing. I am thinking about options. Yours is
probably a pretty decent one...
David, change your code to use << instead of add for right now to
keep moving through any regressions...
-Tom
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Ch
First, I notice that there is a "typo" in the demo. The "include ModB" should
be "include ModA".
On Tuesday 14 March 2006 11:56 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> Ahh, here's my theory, based on a quick look.
>
> It's because of the lazy loading of methods!!! Huzzah! I knew this one
> would come arou
Ahh, here's my theory, based on a quick look.It's because of the lazy loading of methods!!! Huzzah! I knew this one would come around to bite us eventually.Because we rely on method_missing to trigger Java methods to be loaded, if Object has a method that we want to use in an included Java class, w
The arity for list.add is coming from ModA#add, without any real reason to be.
I'm not sure if this is "special case for the 'default' object", or not.
---cut
require 'java'
include_class 'java.util.ArrayList'
module ModA
def add a,b,c
end
end
include ModB
list = ArrayList.new
On Tuesday 14 March 2006 08:04 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
Still not there yet. I've got a java proxy that is getting an "Wrong # of
arguments". I'll dig into it
David
> Ok, I'll be watching for it!
>
> On 3/14/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 13 March 2006 10:22 p
Ok, I'll be watching for it!On 3/14/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 13 March 2006 10:22 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:> Try it now; it was almost the same issue that was causing some other> flow-control stuff to blow up. I believe it is occurring when you have a> return cross fra
On Monday 13 March 2006 10:22 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> Try it now; it was almost the same issue that was causing some other
> flow-control stuff to blow up. I believe it is occurring when you have a
> return cross frame boundaries, as with a block call that does return and
> runs in a differen
Try it now; it was almost the same issue that was causing some other flow-control stuff to blow up. I believe it is occurring when you have a return cross frame boundaries, as with a block call that does return and runs in a different EvalState. I'm continuing to isolate it to a specific case that
Excellent, I'll have a look!On 3/13/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Finally! This shows the NPE. Sorry it took so long, but I had a lot of Javacode in the original failure, and it took me a while to figure out what wasreally causing the issue.cutrequire 'test/unit'
class Conte
Finally! This shows the NPE. Sorry it took so long, but I had a lot of Java
code in the original failure, and it took me a while to figure out what was
really causing the issue.
cut
require 'test/unit'
class ContextStack
def inContext &proc
begin
proc.call
ensure
e
On Thursday 09 March 2006 02:09 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> The fix is in! I am still working on designing good test cases for it,
> however. Let me know how it goes.
Still no luck. And unfortunately, I can't work on it this weekend due to
networking problems. But I'll continue to try to shri
The fix is in! I am still working on designing good test cases for it, however. Let me know how it goes.On 3/9/06, Charles O Nutter <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Don't worry about it, I've got a patch coming. I think I found the issue...there were a number of places where currentException wasn't being
Don't worry about it, I've got a patch coming. I think I found the issue...there were a number of places where currentException wasn't being set that broke retry and break when en ensure was present. I've got a couple cases, and will be committing in a minute.
On 3/9/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTEC
I understand. I've narrowed it down some, but have a ways to go.
Unfortunately, so far, my working is dependent on our Java code, which makes
it that much more annoying.
David
On Thursday 09 March 2006 12:21, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> Ok ok, I'll check again. If you can narrow it down at all
Ok ok, I'll check again. If you can narrow it down at all it would be great...I believe I can fix it for you, but having a test case to commit would make me feel better about it.On 3/8/06,
David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 14:18, Charles O Nutter wrote:> Ok, it loo
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 14:18, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> Ok, it looks like some of the "branch-only" changes I started making to the
> evaluator are also required for HEAD to work 100% with the new exception
> subsystem. I merged the appropriate changes to HEAD. I would wager this
> will fix you
Ok, it looks like some of the "branch-only" changes I started making to the evaluator are also required for HEAD to work 100% with the new exception subsystem. I merged the appropriate changes to HEAD. I would wager this will fix your issue, but give it a quick run and let me know what you see.
On
I think I can tackle this one. I'll take a look this evening.
On 3/7/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Digging in the problem is that the EvaluateState#currentException is null, and
> the "ExceptionRethrower" tries to throw a null. I've not been able to
> produce a small test-case yet
Digging in the problem is that the EvaluateState#currentException is null, and
the "ExceptionRethrower" tries to throw a null. I've not been able to
produce a small test-case yet, so I was wonderinf if anyone could give some
pointers about what to look at in the debugger.
I'm trying to call a
I'm getting this after my java code throws an exception. I haven't got it
boiled down to Ia simple demo, but I thought this might help in the mean
time
NativeException: java.lang.NullPointerException: null
org.jruby.evaluator.EvaluationState$ExceptionRethrower.execute(EvaluationState
And fixed! It was defaulting methods found in a "class Object" section
to be PRIVATE, but Ruby code did not appear to do that.
- Charlie
On 3/6/06, Thomas E Enebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In xpath_parser.rb:
>
> class Object
> def dclone
> clone
> end
> end
>
> In 1.8.4 rexml it app
Fixed.
-Tom
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006, David Corbin defenestrated me:
> ---begin---
> XML = 'xyz'
>
> def fooMethod
> XML = foo.bar
> end
> ---end---
>
> this one is for Tom. A NullPointerException while parsing this.
>
>
> ---
> Thi
In xpath_parser.rb:
class Object
def dclone
clone
end
end
In 1.8.4 rexml it appears that the String "" is not seeing
dclone def'd in Object. Looks like a simple test case should
be possible.
-Tom
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006, Charles O Nutter defenestrated me:
> That's a very good though...I
Confirmed...I'll let Tom enjoy this one :)
On 3/6/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ---begin---
> XML = 'xyz'
>
> def fooMethod
> XML = foo.bar
> end
> ---end---
>
> this one is for Tom. A NullPointerException while parsing this.
>
>
> ---
That's a very good though...I think I'm still running on 1.8.2 libs
here. I should probably upgrade, but perhaps they busted something.
On 3/6/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose it's possible that it's not a *true* regression, and that it's a
> failure introduce by the Ruby 1.
On Monday 06 March 2006 09:00 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> That one doesn't blow up for me...should it?
>
It does for me:
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/rexml/xpath_parser.rb:20:in `method_missing': undefined
method `dclone' for "":String (NoMethodError)
from /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/rexml/xpath_parser.rb:2
I am getting:
./lib/ruby/1.8/rexml/xpath_parser.rb:20:in `method_missing': private method
'dclone' called for "":String (NoMethodError)
Is that what you are getting David?
-Tom
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006, Charles O Nutter defenestrated me:
> That one doesn't blow up for me...should it?
>
> On 3
---begin---
XML = 'xyz'
def fooMethod
XML = foo.bar
end
---end---
this one is for Tom. A NullPointerException while parsing this.
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applicati
That one doesn't blow up for me...should it?
On 3/6/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's #4.
> --cut---
> require 'rexml/document'
>
> XML = <<-EOF
>
>
>
> EOF
>
> doc = REXML::Document.new(XML)
> REXML::XPath.match(doc, "/foo//@uri").first.to_s
> --end--
> On Monday 06 March
Here's #4.
--cut---
require 'rexml/document'
XML = <<-EOF
EOF
doc = REXML::Document.new(XML)
REXML::XPath.match(doc, "/foo//@uri").first.to_s
--end--
On Monday 06 March 2006 12:46 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> Fixity fixed! When I modified the includeModule code to recursively
> include othe
Fixity fixed! When I modified the includeModule code to recursively
include other modules (allowing modules to be searched in correct
order), there was one other change I should have made. When including
before, it iteratively included all parents. In addition to screwing
up the order, this allowed
Here's another one that's similar to the last one. Note, the include
"Test::Unit::Assertions" is key to creating the problem. The net-effect of
this is that the Assertions have been included twice, since they're already
in TestCase.
I'm not able to access CVS, so this is not quite a test aga
Here's another one that's similar to the last one. Note, the include
"Test::Unit::Assertions" is key to creating the problem. The net-effect of
this is that the Assertions have been included twice, since they're already
in TestCase.
I'm not able to access CVS, so this is not quite a test aga
I'm continuing on the rails path right now, so do make sure to update
as you see changes come in. I just committed one for until not working
correctly (my fault). I've got another one coming up for (I think)
substr...some are regressions, some are new fixes, but watch for them.
On 2/28/06, David C
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 10:39 am, Thomas E Enebo wrote:
> Thanks for digging in DavidYou are a life saver and you definitely
> raise our quality bar higher..
Glad to contribute. Wish I had more time, so this wasn't always at the last
minute.
> .Hopefully, we get enough coverage this
Yep for sure...
-Tom
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Charles O Nutter defenestrated me:
> I think we'll also shoot for more frequent releases in the future
> too...it's been a long time since 0.8.2, and too much has changed
> for a 0.0.1 release.
>
> On 2/28/06, Thomas E Enebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
I think we'll also shoot for more frequent releases in the future
too...it's been a long time since 0.8.2, and too much has changed
for a 0.0.1 release.
On 2/28/06, Thomas E Enebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for digging in DavidYou are a life saver and you definitely
> raise our
Thanks for digging in DavidYou are a life saver and you definitely
raise our quality bar higher...Hopefully, we get enough coverage this
time around that the 0.8.3 cycle does not cause as many regressions.
-Tom
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, David Corbin defenestrated me:
>
> Well, things are better,
Ok, please do what you can and let us know if we can help. A lot's
changed since 0.8.2. I would expect that fixes we've made could also
cause new issues with your code if your test cases worked because of
bugs before. We'll be standing by.
On 2/28/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well
Well, things are better, but still not right. I've getting numerous different
failures now. I'll have to spend some time paring it down to a reasonable
example of the different failures...
David
On Monday 27 February 2006 06:45 pm, David Corbin wrote:
> I'll give our "stuff" another go tomorro
I'll give our "stuff" another go tomorrow...
On Monday 27 February 2006 01:23 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> Fixed! The wrapper for includes, IncludedModuleWrapper, was never
> updated when I fixed the module include ordering, so it was still
> expecting superclasses to be included below it rather
Fixed! The wrapper for includes, IncludedModuleWrapper, was never
updated when I fixed the module include ordering, so it was still
expecting superclasses to be included below it rather than above it. I
updated it to do things the correct way and it works right now. I also
added a test case based o
47 matches
Mail list logo
