But I want to. I really do. And view_config doesn't allow me to do so.
You should understand me. I don't want to have extra imports in my project.
I want transparent support from the framework. This example makes sense for 
me:

from pyramid.view import view_config
@view_config(decorator=(decorator1, decorator2, ...))

But this is not:
from pyramid.view import view_config
# Why should I do this for each of my view modules?
from somewhere import chain_decorators

@view_config(decorator=chain_decorators(decorator1, decorator2, ...))


On Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:21:24 PM UTC+4, Chris McDonough wrote:
>
> On 06/21/2012 07:29 AM, Max Avanov wrote: 
> >  > No! View callable functions must accept at least a request argument. 
> > There will never be something this that will work as a view callable: 
> > 
> > This is my typo. I was talking about a regular generic view callable. 
> > I still don't get how to rewrite these @authenticate_form and @https (as 
> > an example) - 
> > https://github.com/Pylons/pylons/blob/master/pylons/decorators/secure.py 
> > - to be able to do the common: 
> > 
> > @view_config() 
> > @https() 
> > @autnenticate_form 
> > def view(request) - or - def view(context, request) - or - def 
> view(self) 
> > 
> > without passing it to view_config 
>
> Why you don't want to pass the decorator to view_config via decorator= I 
> have no idea, given that dealing with the differences is the entire 
> purpose of that machinery and the code to support a chain of decorators 
> is entirely boilerplate. 
>
> But assuming you didn't, and assuming this isn't an entirely theoretical 
> exercise which we're beating to death, you could write a decorator that 
> assumed *one* signature which also set __module__, and __doc__ and on 
> the function returned from the decorator: 
>
> from functools import wraps 
>
> def adecorator(wrapped): 
>      def inner(request): 
>          print request.url 
>          return wrapped(request) 
>      return wraps(wrapped, ('__module__', '__doc__'))(decorator) 
>
> @view_config(....) 
> @adecorator 
> def view(request): 
>      .... 
>
> - C 
>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:39:57 AM UTC+4, Chris McDonough wrote: 
> > 
> >     On 06/20/2012 06:13 PM, Max Avanov wrote: 
> >      > > So I'm lost as to what 
> >      > you mean by "no other way to get access to request object" 
> >      > 
> >      > Because I must 
> >      > - either to follow the official approach provided by Michael (" a 
> >      > consistent signature no matter whether the actual view is a 
> >     method, or a 
> >      > function 
> >      > that accepts either (context, request) or just (request)...") 
> >     with the 
> >      > consequent @view_config(decorator=...) and the chained code 
> snipped. 
> >      > - or use the "classic" way: 
> >      > @decorator1 
> >      > @decorator2 
> >      > @decoratorN 
> >      > @view_config 
> >      > def func() 
> >      > 
> >      > For classic way I use the decorator package - 
> >      > http://micheles.googlecode.com/hg/decorator/documentation.html 
> >     <http://micheles.googlecode.com/hg/decorator/documentation.html> - 
> >     But the 
> >      > classic way allows me only one generic approach to get the 
> request 
> >      > object - via get_current_request, right? 
> > 
> >     No! View callable functions must accept at least a request argument. 
> >     There will never be something this that will work as a view 
> callable: 
> > 
> >     def func(): 
> >     ... 
> > 
> >     It just wont work. A view callable must be: 
> > 
> >     def func(request): 
> >     ... 
> > 
> >     An alternate view callable signature optionally accepts "(context, 
> >     request)" but if your code doesn't use that signature for any of 
> your 
> >     view callables, you won't care. Pyramid view callables can also be 
> >     methods of classes, but if your code doesn't use view classes, you 
> >     won't 
> >     care about that either. 
> > 
> >     If you *do* care about reusing a decorator across all of these view 
> >     callable conventions, however, you can use the decorator= argument 
> to 
> >     view_config. The point of the decorator= argument to view_config is 
> to 
> >     provide genericness by accepting a decorator that can use a single 
> >     common call signature for a decorator ("(context, request)"). So you 
> >     can use the following decorator: 
> > 
> >     def adecorator(viewcallable): 
> >     def inner(context, request): 
> >     print request.url 
> >     return viewcallable(context, request) 
> >     return inner 
> > 
> >     .. against this kind of view configuration ... 
> > 
> >     class AView(object): 
> >     def __init__(self, request): 
> >     self.request = request 
> > 
> >     @view_config(decorator=adecorator) 
> >     def aview(self): 
> >     return Response('OK') 
> > 
> >     .. or this kind ... 
> > 
> >     @view_config(decorator=adecorator) 
> >     def aview(request): 
> >     return Response('OK') 
> > 
> >     ... or this kind ... 
> > 
> >     @view_config(decorator=adecorator) 
> >     def aview(context, request): 
> >     return Response('OK') 
> > 
> >     ... or this kind ... 
> > 
> >     @view_config(decorator=adecorator) 
> >     class AView(object): 
> >     def __init__(self, request): 
> >     self.request = request 
> > 
> >     def __call__(self): 
> >     return Response('OK') 
> > 
> >     ... or this kind ... 
> > 
> >     class AView(object): 
> >     def __init__(self, context, request): 
> >     self.context = context 
> >     self.request = request 
> > 
> >     @view_config(decorator=adecorator) 
> >     def aview(self): 
> >     return Response('OK') 
> > 
> >     You get the point. The *same decorator* will work against any view 
> >     callable you define, even though the place it gets used differs: 
> >     against a method of a class, against a class object, against a 
> function 
> >     object, and the associated callable may have different arguments. It 
> >     will still work in all scenarios. 
> > 
> >     Since a decorator is just a callable that returns a callable, 
> whether 
> >     you use the package you linked to or not to produce one is 
> irrelevant. 
> >     Even the "@" syntax is just sugar. Instead of: 
> > 
> >     @decorator1 
> >     @decorator2 
> >     def func(): 
> >     ... 
> > 
> >     it could just be: 
> > 
> >     def func(): 
> >     ... 
> > 
> >     func = decorator2(decorator1(func)) 
> > 
> >     If you're decorating functions or methods that you don't know the 
> >     argument list for, just make the decorator accept *arg, **kw and 
> pass 
> >     those along to the wrapped function from your wrapper function 
> defined 
> >     inside the decorator. That will work for any sort of wrapped 
> function, 
> >     even those for a view callable. 
> > 
> >     If you mean you want to create some sort of omniscient decorator 
> that 
> >     can be used for both a view callable *and any other kind of 
> function*, 
> >     but which in both cases requires a request to.. do something.., 
> then, 
> >     yes, you could use get_current_request inside the decorator logic. 
> It'd 
> >     be insane to try to define such a decorator, when you could just 
> create 
> >     one that expected the decorated function to supply the (context, 
> >     request) signature, but you could do it. 
> > 
> >     If this all boils down to "why dont you support a sequence rather 
> >     than a 
> >     single function as a valid decorator= argument" because you need to 
> mix 
> >     and match logic in your decorators, please either submit some code 
> that 
> >     makes it so or use the recipe for chained decorators. 
> > 
> >     - C 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > Groups "pylons-discuss" group. 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-discuss/-/fhyzewf5dfkJ. 
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> > [email protected]. 
> > For more options, visit this group at 
> > http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en. 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"pylons-discuss" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-discuss/-/vp2QABR9sV0J.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.

Reply via email to