[#11569] sprintf: Format specifier tokens aren't checked well enough — Florian Gross <florgro@...>

Hi,

12 messages 2007/07/01

[#11611] Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

130 messages 2007/07/08
[#11625] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/07/09

On Jul 8, 2007, at 00:49, SASADA Koichi wrote:

[#11727] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/07/17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#11738] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/07/17

On Jul 17, 2007, at 01:26, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:

[#11752] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/07/18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#11794] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/07/24

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#11820] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/07/26

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12323] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12330] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/10/01

On Sep 30, 2007, at 22:56 , NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:

[#12637] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/10/13

On Oct 1, 2007, at 09:57 , Eric Hodel wrote:

[#12642] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/13

Hi,

[#12643] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12645] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/10/13

On Oct 13, 2007, at 02:00 , NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:

[#12652] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12656] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/10/13

On Oct 13, 2007, at 08:00 , NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:

[#12691] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12712] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/10/16

On Oct 15, 2007, at 07:14 , NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:

[#12717] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "Leonard Chin" <l.g.chin@...> 2007/10/17

On 10/17/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

[#12729] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/10/17

Leonard Chin wrote:

[#12766] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/10/19

In article <4710890A.3020009@sarion.co.jp>,

[#12768] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/19

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12771] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/10/19

In article <4718708D.3050001@sarion.co.jp>,

[#12792] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/20

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12798] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/10/21

In article <471A1720.4080606@sarion.co.jp>,

[#12827] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/22

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12852] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/10/23

In article <471CAFE0.2070104@sarion.co.jp>,

[#12853] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/23

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12854] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/10/23

In article <471D4D1F.5050006@sarion.co.jp>,

[#12857] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/23

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#12896] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/10/24

In article <471D5665.5040209@sarion.co.jp>,

[#12914] Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2007/10/25

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#11642] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — "Marcel Molina Jr." <marcel@...>

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:02:06PM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

21 messages 2007/07/13
[#11671] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2007/07/13

[#11645] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

20 messages 2007/07/13
[#11646] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/07/13

Hi,

[#11647] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/07/13

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#11650] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/07/13

Hi,

[#11756] threads and heavy io on osx and linux — "ara.t.howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...>

15 messages 2007/07/18

[#11795] What libraries to be unbundled? — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

27 messages 2007/07/24
[#11797] Re: What libraries to be unbundled? — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/07/24

I don't think that json should be unbundled. It is the interchange

ruby extension help

From: Oliver <python152@...>
Date: 2007-07-17 02:55:36 UTC
List: ruby-core #11724
hi, folks -

I am working on a ruby extension for an existing C library, and ran
into difficulties due to a "unique" data structure (unique in the
sense that I didn't find any examples to follow).

I've posted a similar help message on comp.language.ruby, but didn't
get a clear answer, hopefully this will reach a wider developer
community and I appreciate your help.

=== background

The C library I am working on has a so-called dynamic command dispatch
structure, it is basically a hook meant for accommodating a set of
user-provided call back functions. It is defined as follows:

/* command dispatch structure */
typedef int (*proxy_cmd)(int trans_id, int nargs, char **args);

struct proxy_commands {
        int                         cmd_base;
        int                         cmd_size;
        proxy_cmd *       cmd_funcs;
};

typedef struct proxy_commands   proxy_commands;

/* end of definition */


=== C usage

Under normal case, a C library user will supply the following
structure and make use of above structure.

int my_init(server,port) { ... }
int my_connect( ... ) { ...}

/* put all function pointer into array */
proxy_cmd cmds[] = {
   my_init,
   my_connect,
   my_finish,
   ...
};


/* and then fill in the required structure */

proxy_commands mytabs = {
    CMD_BASE;
    sizeof(cmds)/sizeof(proxy_cmd),
    cmds

}

/* finally, they can call a library API to register these functions */

register(&mytabs)


=== Ruby extension

Now, when I try to wrap above structure in ruby, I am facing a
dilemma: for the call back function that a C user need to supply, I
want the flexibility to allow user to write those call back functions
in Ruby. Otherwise, they will have to write a mixture of ruby and C to
use a C library, which is kind of awkward.

To support writing these call backs in Ruby, that means in the wrapper
code, I need to "map" those Ruby functions into C, somehow, and fill
in the required structure such as I did in "mytabs", is this correct
steps to follow? and how do I do that?

I am hoping ruby code of using the library will be something like
this, but I don't know if it is possible at all:

def my_init(server, port) { ... } end
def my_connect(...) { ... } end

funcs = [my_init, my_connect]
foo = Proxy.new
foo.register(funcs)

or something like that.

I know this is a convoluted case, and probably too much details to
follow. Let me know if this needs any clarification. Any pointer or
help is much appreciated.

Thanks

Oliver

In This Thread

Prev Next