I think this should be possible in SL4 already:
public abstract class Type : MemberInfo, _Type, IReflect
{
[SecuritySafeCritical]
internal protected Type();
}
There seems to be nothing that would prevent from doing so.
Tomas
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Rome
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:15 PM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Cc: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] IronPython for Silverlight 5?
The docs for System.Type claims that you cannot subclass from it in
Silverlight. Is this being relaxed in v5?
Keith Rome
Senior Consultant and Architect
MCPD-EAD, MCSD, MCDBA, MCTS-WPF, MCTS-TFS, MCTS-WSS
Wintellect | 770.617.4016 | [email protected]
www.wintellect.com
On Apr 14, 2011, at 6:49 PM, "Tomas Matousek" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Couldn't you just subclass Type? It's methods are virtual and can be
> overridden. I don't think you need to emit a real RuntimeType.
>
> Tomas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Rome
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 3:30 PM
> To: Discussion of IronPython
> Subject: Re: [IronPython] IronPython for Silverlight 5?
>
> After looking into what it takes to implement ICustomTypeProvider it seems
> like it would be a nightmare for dynamic object support. You have to produce
> actual custom Type instances, presumably using TypeBuilder and emitting IL
> opcodes to handle the getter/setter accessors. If the databinding system
> caches those dynamically-created Types then it could cause problems because
> what happens when we add a new member via expando after binding once (or
> remove one that previously existed)? But if they don't cache the Type objects
> then it seems like the overhead might be absurd from constructing these
> things again and again (and you can't use TypeBuilder without first creating
> a dynamic assembly and module).
>
> I really hope they alter course and go with ICustomTypeDescriptor instead (or
> even IDynamicMetaObjectProvider if that is feasible). I really don't
> understand how they expect the current system to work for "dynamic
> properties" because there is nothing dynamic at all about a System.Type
> instance. The best it can hope to be is a snapshot of the metadata from a
> dynamic object as of some point in time.
>
>
> Keith Rome
> Senior Consultant and Architect
> MCPD-EAD, MCSD, MCDBA, MCTS-WPF, MCTS-TFS, MCTS-WSS Wintellect |
> 770.617.4016 | [email protected] www.wintellect.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hardy
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:11 PM
> To: Discussion of IronPython
> Cc: Chad Brockman
> Subject: Re: [IronPython] IronPython for Silverlight 5?
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Dino Viehland <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Chad Brockman <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I see Silverlight 5 now has something besides simple reflection
>>>> (ICustomTypeProvider) -
>>>>
>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg986857(v=VS.96).aspx#data
>>>>
>>>> Will we see an update to Iron*/DLR to support binding to dynamic
>>>> objects any time soon? This will open fantastic options for using
>>>> IronPython in Silverlight.
>>>
>>> If someone provides a patch, yes.
>>>
>>> We actually need someone with an interest in Silverlight to keep an
>>> eye on it and make sure that we don't break SL support and new
>>> features like this. We don't have anyone in that role right now.
>>
>> If anyone's interested on working on this it'd probably mean adding
>> an implementation of this onto OldInstance as well as adding it onto
>> our new-style instances whose classes are created by NewTypeMaker.
>> Adding the interface is probably pretty easy, making it return useful things
>> may be a little more difficult.
>>
>> I'm a little surprised they didn't go with the already existing
>> ICustomTypeDescriptor.
>
> Are you really surprised? :)
>
> It is still in Beta. Maybe there's a slight chance their minds could be
> changed? I'm guessing they don't have the rest of System.ComponentModel
> either, so they didn't want to add just one interface.
>
> - Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
