From: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@...>
Date: 2005-11-24T06:47:26+09:00
Subject: Re: pattern: auto-running module init code

Phil Tomson wrote:
> In article <4384cee3$0$1760$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>,
> Daniel Schierbeck  <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Phil Tomson wrote:
>>> I do kind of like your solution, but it does mean that the implementor of the 
>>> module needs to know to define an 'initialized' method to make the mechanism 
>>> work.  
>> That's no different from Module#included and Class.inherited. I think 
>> the method belongs in the module.
>>
>>> What if you just test for mod.respond_to? :initialize  ?  I suppose the 
>>> problem with that would be if the user of the module did happen to include 
>>> 'super' in their constructor - if they did then the module initialization 
>>> would be called twice.
>> Yeah, and there would be the problem that multiple included modules 
>> would override each other's `initialize' methods (as would the including 
>> class.)
> 
> Actually, with your approach where you look for all the included modules and 
> call each of their 'initialize' methods it shouldn't be a problem since you 
> are bypassing the super mechanism.
> 
> Phil

Yeah, but calling a module's method without first including the module 
in a class and then instantiating that class isn't easy. And for some 
reason my Object#method seems to fail. Weird...


Cheers,
Daniel