The suggestion on extconf.rb looks great. I'd incorporate that.
IMHO, the namespace is a must, which we both agreed. I'm open to name it ZMQ
rather than Zmq if you prefer that. I don't have a particular preference one
way or the other.
In terms of API style, I think it should adhere to the basic API in the
C/C++/Python library. Any extra rubyism should be wrapped on top. There are
plenty of messaging abstraction library out there, such as EventMachine. It's
a lot more difficult (or rather cumbersome) to make the API ruby-ish at the C
layer.
Thoughts?
Chris
P.S.: Surprised that there is not much more opinions on the ruby binding.
On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:16 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> Chris Wong wrote:
>> The ruby binding doesn't build correctly on Mac OS X Snow Leopard. This will
>> fix the build. However, I haven't fixed it enough so that it'd build with
>> the top-level Makefile. Will spend more time on it when I have some free
>> cycle on it. For now, this is needs to be built manually using.
>> ruby extconf.rb --with-libzmq-lib=<directory of libzmq.a>
>
>>> require 'mkmf'
>>> dir_config('libzmq')
>>> -have_library('libzmq')
>>> -create_makefile("ruby")
>>> +have_library('zmq')
>>> +create_makefile("librbzmq")
>
> McClain Looney proposed following solution:
>
> require 'mkmf'
> dir_config('libzmq')
> -have_library('libzmq')
> -create_makefile("ruby")
> +if have_library('libzmq', 'zmq_init')
> + puts "cool, I found your zmq install..."
> + create_makefile("zmq")
> +else
> + raise "Couldn't find zmq library. try setting --with-zmq-dir=<path> to
> tell me where it is."
> +end
>
> I have no idea how Ruby plugin system works, so I cannot judge what's
> better...
>
>>> + VALUE cZmq = rb_define_module ("Zmq");
>>> + VALUE context_type = rb_define_class_under (cZmq, "Context",
>>> rb_cObject);
>
> Ruby API should definitely be changed to make the usage of 0MQ as intuitive
> an easy for Ruby developers as possible. The current way of creating socket,
> for instance, seems to miss the namespacing:
>
> s = Socket.new(ctx, REP);
>
> It should probably rather look like this:
>
> s = ZMQ.Socket.new(ctx, ZMQ.REP);
>
> However, changing API is pretty serious matter and so it should be done _once
> only_. Thus, before getting further it would be great if there was some
> discussion on the topic among Ruby developers to point out possible problems
> and drawbacks.
>
> Martin
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
