DSL - class-level methods that affect instances

D

Daniel Waite

I'm having a problem of design. I've tried a few configurations of class
collaboration and responsibility, but they all end up feeling messy.

I'm looking at these (either or, my original attempt was with a module,
but attr_accessor *looks* like it does what I want):

class C < Translator::Base
translate 'this', :to => 'that'
end

class C
include Translator
translate 'this', :to => 'that'
end

With the expectation that...

c = C.new
c.translations

Would yield a hash of the from and to values.

I have no idea how to break the barrier between class and instance. :(

Any ideas?
 
K

Ken Bloom

I'm having a problem of design. I've tried a few configurations of class
collaboration and responsibility, but they all end up feeling messy.

I'm looking at these (either or, my original attempt was with a module,
but attr_accessor *looks* like it does what I want):

class C < Translator::Base
translate 'this', :to => 'that'
end

class C
include Translator
translate 'this', :to => 'that'
end

With the expectation that...

c = C.new
c.translations

Would yield a hash of the from and to values.

I have no idea how to break the barrier between class and instance. :(
Click to expand...

Use class variables (the @@ variety).

class Translator::Base
def self.translate word, params
@@translations ||= {}
@@translations[word]=params[:to]
end
def translations
@@translations ||= {}
end
end

class C < Translator::Base
translate 'a', :to => 'b'
translate 'c', :to => 'd'
end

C.new.translations #=> {"a"=>"b", "c"=>"d"}
 
D

Daniel Waite

Ken said:
class C

I have no idea how to break the barrier between class and instance. :(
Click to expand...

Use class variables (the @@ variety).

class Translator::Base
def self.translate word, params
@@translations ||= {}
@@translations[word]=params[:to]
end
def translations
@@translations ||= {}
end
end

class C < Translator::Base
translate 'a', :to => 'b'
translate 'c', :to => 'd'
end

C.new.translations #=> {"a"=>"b", "c"=>"d"}
Click to expand...

That works! Except it shares translations across all subclasses.

module Translator
class Base

def self.translate word, params
@@translations ||= {}
@@translations[word]=params[:to]
end

def translations
@@translations ||= {}
end

end
end

class C < Translator::Base

translate 'a', :to => 'b'
translate 'c', :to => 'd'

end

class D < Translator::Base

translate 'this', :to => 'that'

end

irb(main):028:0> c = C.new
=> #<C:0x4d4e0>
irb(main):029:0> c.translations
=> {"a"=>"b", "c"=>"d", "this"=>"that"}

While I understand the behavior, its undesirable. I'm going to dust off
Ruby for Rails...
 
D

David A. Black

Hi --

I'm having a problem of design. I've tried a few configurations of class
collaboration and responsibility, but they all end up feeling messy.

I'm looking at these (either or, my original attempt was with a module,
but attr_accessor *looks* like it does what I want):

class C < Translator::Base
translate 'this', :to => 'that'
end

class C
include Translator
translate 'this', :to => 'that'
end

With the expectation that...

c = C.new
c.translations

Would yield a hash of the from and to values.

I have no idea how to break the barrier between class and instance. :(
Click to expand...

I'd say: don't think of it as any more of a barrier than exists
between any other two objects. Every object, including a class object,
has the right to maintain state, and to decide what it will and will
not expose. There's no privileged relationship between c and i just
because i is an instance of c.

(I know that sounds kind of doctrinaire, but I like to lay it on thick
since it usually takes some doing to chip away at the presumptive
class/instance special relationship :)

As Ken suggested, class variables break through the class/instance
boundaries. That's one of the reasons I don't like them :) You can
certainly do it that way; I'll also show you another possibility,
based on engineering all the objects concerned so that they query each
other where necessary:

module Translator
attr_reader :translations

def translate(target, actions)
@translations ||= []
@translations.push("Translating #{target} to #{actions[:to]}")
end
end

class C
extend Translator

def translations
self.class.translations
end

translate "this", :to => "that"
end

p C.new.translations # ["Translating this to that"]


David

--
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
INTRO TO RAILS June 9-12 Berlin
ADVANCING WITH RAILS June 16-19 Berlin
INTRO TO RAILS June 24-27 London (Skills Matter)
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!
 
K

Ken Bloom

Ken said:
class C

I have no idea how to break the barrier between class and instance. :(
Click to expand...

Use class variables (the @@ variety).

class Translator::Base
def self.translate word, params
@@translations ||= {}
@@translations[word]=params[:to]
end
def translations
@@translations ||= {}
end
end

class C < Translator::Base
translate 'a', :to => 'b'
translate 'c', :to => 'd'
end

C.new.translations #=> {"a"=>"b", "c"=>"d"}
Click to expand...

That works! Except it shares translations across all subclasses.

module Translator
class Base

def self.translate word, params
@@translations ||= {}
@@translations[word]=params[:to]
end

def translations
@@translations ||= {}
end

end
end

class C < Translator::Base

translate 'a', :to => 'b'
translate 'c', :to => 'd'

end

class D < Translator::Base

translate 'this', :to => 'that'

end

irb(main):028:0> c = C.new
=> #<C:0x4d4e0>
irb(main):029:0> c.translations
=> {"a"=>"b", "c"=>"d", "this"=>"that"}

While I understand the behavior, its undesirable. I'm going to dust off
Ruby for Rails...
Click to expand...

I couldn't remember why I didn't use @@ variables for another very
similar metaprogramming problem I had this week. Now you've reminded why.

This version uses instance variables on the singleton class (which is
different from using @@ class variables)

class Translator::Base
def self.translate word, params
@translations ||= {}
@translations[word]=params[:to]
end
def translations
self.class.instance_variable_get:)@translations) || {}
end
end

class C < Translator::Base
translate 'a', :to => 'b'
translate 'c', :to => 'd'
end

C.new.translations #=> {"a"=>"b", "c"=>"d"}

class D < Translator::Base
translate 'e', :to => 'f'
end

D.new.translations #=> {"e"=>"f"}
C.new.translations #=> {"a"=>"b", "c"=>"d"}

#But beware:
class E < C
translate 'g', :to => 'h'
end

E.new.translations #=> {"g"=>"h"}

There are ways to solve this by explicitly asking for your parent class's
translations, if you'd like to have that functionality.

--Ken
 
D

David A. Black

Hi --

Ken said:
On Thu, 01 May 2008 18:07:11 -0500, Daniel Waite wrote:

class C

I have no idea how to break the barrier between class and instance. :(

Use class variables (the @@ variety).

class Translator::Base
def self.translate word, params
@@translations ||= {}
@@translations[word]=params[:to]
end
def translations
@@translations ||= {}
end
end

class C < Translator::Base
translate 'a', :to => 'b'
translate 'c', :to => 'd'
end

C.new.translations #=> {"a"=>"b", "c"=>"d"}
Click to expand...

That works! Except it shares translations across all subclasses.

module Translator
class Base

def self.translate word, params
@@translations ||= {}
@@translations[word]=params[:to]
end

def translations
@@translations ||= {}
end

end
end

class C < Translator::Base

translate 'a', :to => 'b'
translate 'c', :to => 'd'

end

class D < Translator::Base

translate 'this', :to => 'that'

end

irb(main):028:0> c = C.new
=> #<C:0x4d4e0>
irb(main):029:0> c.translations
=> {"a"=>"b", "c"=>"d", "this"=>"that"}

While I understand the behavior, its undesirable. I'm going to dust off
Ruby for Rails...
Click to expand...

I couldn't remember why I didn't use @@ variables for another very
similar metaprogramming problem I had this week. Now you've reminded why.

This version uses instance variables on the singleton class (which is
different from using @@ class variables)
Click to expand...

I wish that class variables were $$ instead of @@. They're really a
kind of restricted global, and they have the same qualities of sprawl
that globals do. The @@ always makes it look like they have some kind
of kinship with instance variables, when in fact they're practically
the opposite, in that they open up a shared space for storing state
whereas instance variables specifically make it possible for objects
to control state on an individual, private (give or take the fact that
nothing is really private in Ruby) basis.


David

--
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
INTRO TO RAILS June 9-12 Berlin
ADVANCING WITH RAILS June 16-19 Berlin
INTRO TO RAILS June 24-27 London (Skills Matter)
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!
 
D

Daniel Waite

David said:
I'd say: don't think of it as any more of a barrier than exists
between any other two objects.
Click to expand...

That helps, actually. Viscerally, for now, but I'm sure the fullness of
the stance will sink in with time.
(I know that sounds kind of doctrinaire, but I like to lay it on thick
since it usually takes some doing to chip away at the presumptive
class/instance special relationship :)
Click to expand...

I love saturated opinions. (David West all the way!) I'm re-reading your
book right now starting from chapter 5, and yes, I can already tell I've
lost a forgotten a lot of my understanding of how Ruby works. (I suppose
you could argue I never understood it if I forgot...?)
module Translator
attr_reader :translations

def translate(target, actions)
@translations ||= []
@translations.push("Translating #{target} to #{actions[:to]}")
end
end

class C
extend Translator

def translations
self.class.translations
end

translate "this", :to => "that"
end

p C.new.translations # ["Translating this to that"]
Click to expand...

Works beautifully. Amazing. I thought I was going to end up with some
monolithic structure like ActiveRecord. ;)

@Ken:

Your solution works equally well! I like that yours is class-based so I
don't have to call extend in the body of each inheriting class (of which
there will be quite a few).

I'm not worried about tertiary inheritance; I don't plan on needing it.
(Famous last words, right?)

Thank you both, Ken and David, very much!
 
D

Daniel Waite

Daniel said:
Thank you both, Ken and David, very much!
Click to expand...

Here she is, best of both approaches!

module Translator

module ClassMethods
attr_reader :translations

def translate(from_word, options)
@translations ||= Hash.new
@translations[from_word] = options[:to]
end
end

def self.included(receiver)
receiver.extend(ClassMethods)
end

def translations
self.class.translations
end

class Base
include Translator
end

end

class NewTranslator < Translator::Base

translate 'customer_profile_id', :to => 'customerProfileId'

end

p NewTranslator.new.translations

I feel a little odd putting the class Base declaration at the end of the
module, but if it's not there it has to be outside it entirely (and it
must still occur _after_ the code inside the module), something I don't
really want to do.

Anywho, thanks again for the awesome help. You guys rock!
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

creating a DSL: adding random methods 2
C DSL anyone? 13
Delegating class methods 18
Extending object instances with << 4
Did this stop working? Or did it ever work? (metamagic) 2
Shared value for a member in all instances of a class? 2
Answer: Module that includes both class and instance methods? 1
Protected methods and class methods 3

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 38 (members: 0, guests: 38)
Robots: 506

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,578
Members
45,052
Latest member
LucyCarper

Latest Threads

Top