-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:45:27PM +, Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
The C extension is required to make messageids immutable. Because they
are immutable, the security machinery can treat them as rocks, e.g.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Dec 12, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
I've branched out this package and removed the C-extension. It's not
documented in the package why a C-extension is needed or
alternatively,
what it benefits.
If there are
I've branched out this package and removed the C-extension. It's not
documented in the package why a C-extension is needed or alternatively,
what it benefits.
If there are no objections, I will merge this into trunk shortly.
\malthe
___
Zope-Dev
Hi Malthe
Malthe Borch wrote:
I've branched out this package and removed the C-extension. It's not
documented in the package why a C-extension is needed or alternatively,
what it benefits.
If there are no objections, I will merge this into trunk shortly.
IIRC, the C extension is
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:28:48AM +, Malthe Borch wrote:
I've branched out this package and removed the C-extension. It's not
documented in the package why a C-extension is needed or alternatively,
what it benefits.
C extensions are usually optimizations.
If there are no objections, I
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:28, Malthe Borch mbo...@gmail.com wrote:
I've branched out this package and removed the C-extension. It's not
documented in the package why a C-extension is needed or alternatively,
what it benefits.
The C extension is required to make messageids immutable. Because
Martijn Pieters wrote:
The C extension is required to make messageids immutable. Because they
are immutable, the security machinery can treat them as rocks, e.g.
safe to pass around. Removing the C-extension undoes this, as you
cannot make truely immutable.
I believe it is possible to do this
Malthe Borch wrote:
I believe it is possible to do this in pure Python:
The implementation may reviewed in this branch:
http://svn.zope.org/zope.i18nmessageid/branches/c-extension-less/
\malthe
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:45:27PM +, Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
The C extension is required to make messageids immutable. Because they
are immutable, the security machinery can treat them as rocks, e.g.
safe to pass around. Removing the C-extension undoes this, as you
Marius Gedminas wrote:
Careful: id(some_object) will likely be reused when the old object is
garbage collected.
This has been worked around using the weak reference dictionary.
\malthe
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
On Dec 12, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
I've branched out this package and removed the C-extension. It's not
documented in the package why a C-extension is needed or
alternatively,
what it benefits.
If there are no objections, I will merge this into trunk shortly.
I object.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 17:01, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
I've branched out this package and removed the C-extension. It's not
documented in the package why a C-extension is needed or
alternatively,
what it benefits.
If there are no
Martijn Pieters wrote:
I object as well, and have asked for Malthe to provide his reasoning
here at the Plone Performance Sprint in Bristol, but so far his only
motivation is that he wants to see if he can get this to work without
a C-extension. I am sceptical he'll be able to, and am not
Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
I object as well, and have asked for Malthe to provide his reasoning
here at the Plone Performance Sprint in Bristol, but so far his only
motivation is that he wants to see if he can get this to work without
a C-extension. I am sceptical he'll be
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 18:51, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the new method is equivalent
in both performance and security, talk of dropping the C extension seems
somewhat premature. A pure Python fallback for this module would however
Martijn Faassen wrote:
My suspicion from observing the discussions in this thread so far
indicate that a drop in code complexity doesn't seem to be a necessary
consequence of rewriting to Python either.
The proposed implementation has already been implemented (walk up this
thread); it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
I object as well, and have asked for Malthe to provide his reasoning
here at the Plone Performance Sprint in Bristol, but so far his only
motivation is that he wants to see if he
17 matches
Mail list logo
