I've started tinkering with the "new" Python bindings (python-cffi /
python-notmuch2) and have a couple questions/comments about them:

1) What is the logic behind choosing whether something is exported as
a property or as a method? E.g. Database.needs_upgrade is a property,
while Database.revision() is a method. In my own python code, I tend to
use @property for things that are "cheap" - i.e. do not involve
(significant) IO or heavy computation and methods for those that do. But
both of the above attributes involve library calls, presumably(?) of
similar complexity. Would be nice if this was consistent.

2) Atomic transactions are now exported as a context manager, which is
nice and convenient for the usual use cases, but AFAIU does not have the
same power. E.g. my tagging script does the tagging as a single atomic
transaction and has a "dry-run" mode in which it omits the end_atomic()
call, which is documented to throw away all the changes. This seems to
not be possible with the new bindings.
Would it be okay to add bindings for explicitly calling
start/end_atomic()? Or is my approach considered invalid?

3) There seem to be no bindings for notmuch_database_set_config().

4) The setup for building the documentation seems to be missing.

Anything else of note that remains to be implemented?

Anton Khirnov
notmuch mailing list

Reply via email to