On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:22 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Those objects have headers and payload. The payload can be of anytype, though I think it generally breaks down into "strings" for text/* types and bytes for anything else (not counting multiparts).*sigh* Why are you back-tracking?
I'm not. Sleep deprivation on makes it seem like that.
The payload should be of an appropriate *object* type. Atomic object types will have their content stored as string or bytes [nb I use Python 3 terminology throughout]. Composite types (multipart/*) won't need string or bytes attributes AFAICS.
Yes, agreed.
Start by implementing the application/octet-stream and text/plain;charset=utf-8 object types, of course.
Yes. See my lament about using inheritance for this.
It does seem to make sense to think about headers as text header namesand text header values.I disagree. IMHO, structured header types should have object values, and something like
While I agree, there's still a need for a higher level API that make it easy to do the simple things.
message['to'] = "Barry 'da FLUFL' Warsaw <ba...@python.org>" should be smart enough to detect that it's a string and attempt to (flexibly) parse it into a fullname and a mailbox adding escapes, etc. Whether these should be structured objects or they can be strings or bytes, I'm not sure (probably bytes, not strings, though -- see next exampl). OTOH message['to'] = b'''"Barry 'da.FLUFL' Warsaw" <ba...@python.org>''' should assume that the client knows what they are doing, and should parse it strictly (and I mean "be a real bastard", eg, raise an exception on any non-ASCII octet), merely dividing it into fullname and mailbox, and caching the bytes for later insertion in a wire-format message.
I agree that the Message class needs to be strict. A parser needs to be lenient; see the .defects attribute introduced in the current email package. Oh, and this reminds me that we still haven't talked about idempotency. That's an important principle in the current email package, but do we need to give up on that?
In that case, I think you want the values as unicodes, and probablythe headers as unicodes containing only ASCII. So your table would bestrings in both cases. OTOH, maybe your application cares about the raw underlying encoded data, in which case the header names are probably still strings of ASCII-ish unicodes and the values are bytes. It's this distinction (and I think the competing use cases) that make a true Python 3.x API for email more complicated.I don't see why you can't have the email API be specific, with message['to'] always returning a structured_header object (or maybe even more specifically an address_header object), and methods like message['to'].build_header_as_text() which returns """To: "Barry 'da.FLUFL' Warsaw" <ba...@python.org>""" and message['to'].build_header_in_wire_format() which returns b"""To: "Barry 'da.FLUFL' Warsaw" <ba...@python.org>""" Then have email.textview.Message and email.wireview.Message which provide a simple interface where message['to'] would invoke .build_header_as_text() and .build_header_in_wire_format() respectively.
This seems similar to Glyph's basic idea, but with a different spelling.
Thinking about this stuff makes me nostalgic for the sloppy happy daysof Python 2.xEr, yeah.Nostalgic-for-the-BITNET-days-where-everything-was-Just-EBCDIC-ly y'rs,
Can I have my uucp address back now? -Barry
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
