Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Lam (IRONRUBY) Sent: Wednesday,07 May 07, 2008 15:38 To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2 Peter Bacon Darwin: > The .NET Socket library is a fairly thin layer that sits on top of > WinSock. > Clearly

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

C.J. Adams-Collier: > Sounds reasonable. Any thoughts on using the 'cil > ' back-end for gcc to emit IL > placeholders until there are enough free tuits to implement in C#? > I doubt that would generate verifiable CIL, so it's a non-starter for most of the

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 07:34 -0700, John Lam (IRONRUBY) wrote: > C.J. Adams-Collier: > > > I see that the Ruby.StandardLibrary.RubySocket is implemented in C#. > > Is it common to write the core in C#? Has anything been written in > > Ruby itself? > > Our guideline is: if it was written in C in

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 07:38 -0700, John Lam (IRONRUBY) wrote: > Peter Bacon Darwin: > > > The .NET Socket library is a fairly thin layer that sits on top of > > WinSock. > > Clearly Silverlight would not be able to do this since WinSock is not a > > standard API on other OSes. Also, Silverlight i

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

/ideally/ we would be able to use RUBY_PLATFORM or some such to determine if we were on silverlight or not. We could have a socket.rb that loads the functions differently depending on the platform (and throws not implements if it's not applicable to Silverlight). On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:38 AM,

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

> Sent: Wednesday,07 May 07, 2008 15:10 > To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2 > > I see that the Ruby.StandardLibrary.RubySocket is implemented in C#. > Is it common to write the core in C#? Has anything been w

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

Peter Bacon Darwin: > The .NET Socket library is a fairly thin layer that sits on top of > WinSock. > Clearly Silverlight would not be able to do this since WinSock is not a > standard API on other OSes. Also, Silverlight is going to have > additional security restrictions that would prevent much

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of C.J. Adams-Collier Sent: Wednesday,07 May 07, 2008 15:10 To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2 I see that the Ruby.StandardLibrary.RubySocket is implemented in C

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

C.J. Adams-Collier: > I see that the Ruby.StandardLibrary.RubySocket is implemented in C#. > Is it common to write the core in C#? Has anything been written in > Ruby itself? Our guideline is: if it was written in C in MRI, we're writing in C#. Thanks, -John ___

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

I see that the Ruby.StandardLibrary.RubySocket is implemented in C#. Is it common to write the core in C#? Has anything been written in Ruby itself? Sorry for the newbie question... is there a FAQ for this type of situation? On May 7, 2008, at 2:19 AM, Peter Bacon Darwin wrote: The .NE

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

The .NET Socket library is a fairly thin layer that sits on top of WinSock. Clearly Silverlight would not be able to do this since WinSock is not a standard API on other OSes. Also, Silverlight is going to have additional security restrictions that would prevent much of the Socket library from work

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

Peter Bacon Darwin: > What is the process of these code reviews of external contributions? > Are you expecting to begin a dialogue, since you do ask questions > throughout the review? Or is it more of a feedback opportunity to let > us know what you have done to the code? For instance, are you >

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2

May 05, 2008 18:07 To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2 tfpt review /shelveset:socket2;REDMOND\jflam Overall - looks good! We really want to turn on tests for this stuff. Jim's looking at getting the latest rubinius