[issue1541463] Optimizations for cgi.FieldStorage methods
Sean Reifschneider added the comment: Georg: This has been assigned to you, do you have any thoughts on this? If you don't, please assign back to me. -- keywords: +py3k nosy: +jafo _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1541463 _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1541463] Optimizations for cgi.FieldStorage methods
Georg Brandl added the comment: Thanks for notifying me. The tracker currently doesn't send notifications if you only set the assignee, but don't include a message. I hope this will be fixed soon. The __nonzero__() is unproblematic. The keys() produced in this way will have an unpredictable order, while the original way preserves the order of names in self.list. I don't know whether that would cause problems. -- keywords: +patch -py3k _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1541463 _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1541463] Optimizations for cgi.FieldStorage methods
Sean Reifschneider added the comment: Thanks for correcting my mis-click on the patch item, gbot. As far as the order goes, is this something that needs to be discussed on c.l.p, or should we assign it to someone else who might have an opinion on it? _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1541463 _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1541463] Optimizations for cgi.FieldStorage methods
Bob Kline added the comment: Please note that the documentation of the keys() method of the FieldStorage class (both in the method's docstring as well as in the separate library manual) describes the method as a dictionary style keys() method. Section 3.8 of the documentation has this to say about the keys() method of a dictionary: Keys and values are listed in an arbitrary order which is non-random, varies across Python implementations, and depends on the dictionary's history of insertions and deletions. I believe the proposed implementation conforms with this specified behavior. _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1541463 _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1541463] Optimizations for cgi.FieldStorage methods
Georg Brandl added the comment: While this is true, there may be code relying on the current behavior, and to break that for a tiny performance gain is gratuitous breakage and should be avoided. _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1541463 _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1541463] Optimizations for cgi.FieldStorage methods
Bob Kline added the comment: I'm not sure I would characterize a speedup of several orders of magnitude a tiny performance gain. We had scripts with very large numbers of fields which were actually timing out. While I understand and agree with the principle of breaking as little existing code as possible, when programmers have actually been told that the method behaves the way the dictionary keys() method behaves it seems unreasonable to assume that the method will preserve the original order of fields (whatever that might mean for multiply-occurring field names). _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1541463 _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
