>>> I wouldn't consider it good idiomatic ruby, but the Thrift libs aren't structured as good idiomatic ruby.
Yeah... sorry about that. I "learned" Ruby by porting the Python. You should really feel quite free to overhaul the Ruby stuff and make it better and more idiomatic (Kevin Clark's already led the way, doing quite a bit of that). -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Ballard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ruby Thrift::Socket timeout? I wouldn't consider it good idiomatic ruby, but the Thrift libs aren't structured as good idiomatic ruby. My only reason for suggesting the Thrift::TimeoutTransport is so it could work with other transports that implement #to_io, but I'm perfectly happy just giving Thrift::Socket the optional argument. -Kevin Ballard On Jul 10, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Mark Slee wrote: > Sounds cleaner to just put an optional timeout on Thrift::Socket, and > allow it to be absent for people who don't want timeouts. The wrapper > feels heavy to me -- but also sounds fine if it's considered good > idiomatic practice to do that in Ruby (I'm still a Ruby n00b). > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Ballard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:26 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Ruby Thrift::Socket timeout? > > Bryan Duxbury has requested that Thrift::Socket be given an optional > Timeout argument, which will make it block on select() instead of > read() and raise an error if it hits the timeout. The alternative is > to make a Thrift::TimeoutTransport which wraps a Thrift::Socket and > uses select itself (as Thrift::Socket implements #to_io, so it can be > used in select()). > > Does anybody have any opinions as to which approach is better? > > -Kevin Ballard > > -- > Kevin Ballard > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- Kevin Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
