From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-08-07T21:45:29+09:00
Subject: Re: Better way to do this? Currently using two method_missing calls...

2007/8/7, Dan <dan.gottlieb@gmail.com>:
> On Aug 6, 2:53 am, "Robert Klemme" <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 2007/8/4, Dan <dan.gottl...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Ok, I see where you were going now.  I guess I could go in that
> > > direction, but since sending functions and objects to the web service
> > > is just done via POST params, so I'd rather route all the requests to
> > > the "call" class method on my API class.  Any ideas on how to do this
> > > without having to create a instance of the API class (or any class)
> > > just to store the "object" name ?
> >
> > This is what I'd do (attached).  Note, you need to know the number of
> > invocations in this example.  The pattern could however use other
> > criteria for triggering the action.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > robert
> >
> >  call-recorder.rb
> > 1KDownload
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thanks for the reply.  I was wondering if that there was a way to do
> this sort of thing in ruby without having to create a class instance
> just to store the method calls.  However, it looks like that's not
> possible, which I kind of understand.  Not perfect for my situation,
> but it should be good enough.

Can you explain why you are reluctant to create an instance for this?
Generally, creating and manipulating objects is all OO is about. :-)
More specifically, since your remote call is likely an order of
magnitude slower than the instance creation performance effects are
negligible.

Kind regards

robert