On Feb 20, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Will Glass-Husain wrote:

I like the Uberspector idea.  Nice and generic.  Cleanly provides a
bridge between Velocity and Ruby syntax.

I'm not sure you get a change of syntax, but things like this is why it was designed, IIRC :)

geir


On 2/20/07, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, and the other thing that might work is to implement a custom
Uberspect that knows how to properly look up methods on a RubyObject.
 This would probably be more work than an event handler or simple
object wrapper, but i imagine that it could turn out to be the most
useful for integrating JRuby and Velocity in the long run.

On 2/20/07, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How would the RubyObjectWrapper work when specifying method argument,
> e.g$jrubyObject.testMethod( "argument1", "argument2" ) ?
>
> I already start down the road of using an Event handler for InvalidReference > to catch instances of RubyObject. It works for $jrubyObject.testMethod , but > I am having the same problem as above, how to handle method arguments? The > InvalidReferenceEventHandler#invalidMethod does not appear to contain the > argument information for a reference $jrubyObject.testMethod ( "argument1",
> "argument2" )
>
> thanks,
> Michael
>
> On 2/20/07, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I imagine you could get pretty far by wrapping the RubyObjects in a > > more Velocity-friendly object that takes advantage how Velocity treats
> > get(String) methods before putting it into the context.
> >
> > Perhaps something like:
> >
> >
> > public class RubyObjectWrapper {
> >    private RubyObject foo;
> >    public RubyObjectWrapper(RubyObject wrapMe) {
> >         this.foo = wrapMe;
> >    }
> >    public Object get(String methodName) {
> >         return new RubyObjectWrapper(this.foo.callMethod(
> > foo.getRuntime(), methodName));
> >    }
> > }
> >
> > If i understand the problem space here, this should allow you to
> > traverse the object graph for you RubyObjects as you ask:
> >
> > $jrubyObject.testMethod
> >
> > I'm really not at all familiar with Ruby, much less JRuby, but perhaps > > this will help you get on the right track. I use tricks like this to > > simplify the VTL syntax for various tools in VelocityTools all the
> > time.
> >
> > The other thing which may help here is using Velocity's EventHandler > > capabilities to recognize when a reference is a RubyObject and treat > > it differently. Will is much more experienced and knowledgeable on > > event handlers than i am, so he may be able to tell you better whether
> > or not that is a dead end for this sort of thing.
> >
> >
> > On 2/20/07, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I have been using Velocity for years now and find it the best templating
> > > language around. This has lead me to try and spread the joy by
> > attempting to
> > > swap out RHTML for Velocity in JRuby on Rails.
> > >
> > > I have a few simple Ruby test scripts that parse a templates Velocity. > > > Things get messy when Velocity needs to traverse an object graph. When
> > used
> > > in Rails, the VelocityContext can have a mix of Java objects and
> > RubyObject
> > > (these are the problematic ones). The RubyObject is a wrapper for a
> > Ruby
> > > object from the JRuby runtime. The RubyObjects do not have static typed > > > methods, but everything must go through the method 'callMethod'.
> > >
> > > For example, to use velocity notation on the Java object 'sample' to get
> > the
> > > method 'test':
> > >    $sample.test
> > >
> > > would be on a RubyObject 'sample' to get the method 'test':
> > >    $sample.callMethod( $sample.getRuntime(), "test" )
> > >
> > > Things get sticker for passing arguments to a method in RubyObject, all > > > arguments must implement IRubyObject. I will just skip over this for
> > now.
> > >
> > > Here is the crux of my question, is it possible to extend Velocity to
> > add
> > > support for handling RubyObjects? Ideally Velocity would be able to > > > determine whether an object is an implementation of RubyObject, or not,
> > and
> > > handle appropriately, i.e $jrubyObject.testMethod could be call directly
> > > instead of the callMethod for a RubyObject.
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Michael
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
Forio Business Simulations

Will Glass-Husain
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.forio.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to