From: Jason Voegele <jason@...>
Date: 2002-05-02T12:47:59+09:00
Subject: RE: Scope of Singleton Classes

--00CtRDR5)ZuV:_p(hWp8nFR78yMfF,czDAi8_v)'('nnXZFWWLOWD5QmcQmnn'8(9/fRaT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>> 3) Is caching methods like this (rather than relying on method_missing
> for
>> each invocation) a significant enough performance improvement to make
> it
>> worth it?
> 
> Because the method you define to "cache" ends up calling the #forward
> method, I can't see how this would be different than performance of
> calling #forward from method_missing.

Yes, you're probably right, but I've actually simplified for this example. 
 In my real application, the generated method actually contains the code 
to forward the request (i.e. it would be a regular method call, rather 
than a "send" operation).

I guess my real question is, would generating a method like this at 
runtime improve performance over Ruby searching up the inheritance 
heirarchy and then calling method_missing each time?
 
> One other thing to remember in your ObjectProxy is that method_missing
> will not be called for methods that are defined (or included from
> Modules) in Object which is quite a list.  You may want to "undef" all
> the inherited methods.

Good point.  I've actually undef'd all methods except for __id__ and 
__send__, which give warnings when they are undefined.

Thanks,
Jason Voegele



--00CtRDR5)ZuV:_p(hWp8nFR78yMfF,czDAi8_v)'('nnXZFWWLOWD5QmcQmnn'8(9/fRaT
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;name=""
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=""
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

DQo=

--00CtRDR5)ZuV:_p(hWp8nFR78yMfF,czDAi8_v)'('nnXZFWWLOWD5QmcQmnn'8(9/fRaT--