[fxruby-users] building for 1.9

Lyle Johnson lyle at lylejohnson.name
Tue Apr 1 19:15:15 EDT 2008

This is just a quickie reply while I'm waiting for dinner to finish...

On Apr 1, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Steven Parkes wrote:

> 1.9 could make things slightly better, letting both ruby and fox  
> block.
> Maybe. I'm not sure, but investigating. It still leaves open how one
> notifies/wakens the other side. It might not be too hard to have fox  
> wake
> ruby threads; I think it has an API for that (but I'm not 100% sure  
> either).
> Going the other way, I didn't say any obvious indications of fox  
> having an
> API to be wakened...

Look into the FXGUISignal class from the FOX library; I think under  
the hood it's implemented using a pipe that the non-FOX thread writes  
to to wake up the FOX thread. (Maybe a different implementation on  
Windows.) That class currently isn't exposed by FXRuby (because we  
haven't needed it) but I could do so if it proves useful.

> I'm still trying to work through how the two schedule loops could  
> cooperate
> for "best results", where a big step is figuring what "best results"  
> means.

Yes. ;)

> 	You may be able to just remove that require statement (for
> 	'ftools') and get it to work
> Yeah, I went that far, but ftools has File#move which is actually  
> used. I
> may dig a little deeper now that I know 1.9 support is at least on  
> the table
> ...


> 	Many of the distribution files (including extconf.rb) are
> 	automatically generated from templates by a Rake task and aren't
> 	actually checked in to the Subversion repository.
> I figured it was something like this. I'll get the 1.6 branch and  
> dive a bit
> more into the rake stuff ...

OK. Let me know if you run into problems.



"FXRuby: Create Lean and Mean GUIs with Ruby"
Now available as a Beta book from the Pragmatic Bookshelf

More information about the fxruby-users mailing list