From: "Ara.T.Howard" <ara.t.howard@...>
Date: 2006-09-24T07:21:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Slave class -- Was Re: Ruby, Analysis, and Tons of RAM

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

> ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>> http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/slave/
>> http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/slave/slave-0.0.1/README
>
> Ara, why does Slave.new keep a copy of the object (the one you want to be 
> served up) on both sides of the fork?
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense for it to work like this (modifying the example 
> in slave.rb):
>
>   class Server
>     def add_two n
>       n + 2
>     end
>   end
>
>   slave = Slave.new {Server.new}   # <-- note addition of {...}
>   server = slave.object
>
>   p server.add_two(40) #=> 42
>
> Slave.new would call the block _only_ in the child, and the parent would 
> never have an instance of Server, only the drb handle to it.
>
> This might matter if Server.new consumes resources, sets up a data structure 
> in memory, opens files, etc.

that's a great point joel.  i'll add that capability and release on monday or
so.  right now, if a block is given it's called with the object - but i can
detect the case based on whether or not and obj is also passed.

thanks a bunch.

-a
-- 
in order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow - and that is
likely to hurt. -- wei wu wei