From: Eric Mahurin <eric.mahurin@...>
Date: 2008-02-27T23:38:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Monkeypatching is Destroying Ruby

------=_Part_1788_18747187.1204123116790
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 7:46 AM, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net>
wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2008, at 10:02 PM, James Gray wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Eric Mahurin wrote:
> >
> >> I usually only do monkey patching in the
> >> following cases which have no reuse: top-level script, testing, and
> >> quick hacking.
> >
> > I think it's the ideal tool for adding compatibility methods.
>
> Along these lines, I read a chapter in Design Patterns in Ruby last
> night that suggests using Ruby's open classes as one possible way to
> implement the Adapter pattern.  The book includes a pretty good
> discussion of the plusses and minus to this approach and makes
> recommendations about when it's probably worth the trade-off.  It's a
> good read.
>
> James Edward Gray II


I don't have the book.  I wouldn't mind seeing the +/- list.

You are talking about this, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapter_pattern

Using what this link above suggests (adapter "has-a" or "is-a" adaptee) is
the better way to go, IMO.  There are multiple ways to do this in Ruby.
Monkey-patching/open-classes makes the solution: adapter IS adaptee.  I
don't know if you can even call it the adapter pattern since you are
destroying the adaptee interface.

------=_Part_1788_18747187.1204123116790--