Hi there,
I am trying to figure out how to use zope.proxy for creating read-only
proxy objects of arbitrary Python objects where only attributes can be
accessed read-only (no write access to attributes, no calling of
methods). Anyone with some example code?
Andreas
begin:vcard
fn:Andreas Ju
Hi,
My first question regarding that would be: why use zope.proxy for it.
Personally - not knowing what exactly you have in mind ofc - i'd use
something along the lines of
class Proxy(object):
def __init__(self, obj):
self.obj = obj
def __getattr__(self, attribute):
retu
On 22.12.2008 11:34 Uhr, Andreas Kopecky wrote:
Hi,
My first question regarding that would be: why use zope.proxy for it.
Personally - not knowing what exactly you have in mind ofc - i'd use
something along the lines of
class Proxy(object):
def __init__(self, obj):
self.obj = obj
Hi,
Well if it's invalid i won't bother with it but say:
- i forgot a self - that is true
- if added it does NOT loop infinitely
- its not my example its taken from python cookbook
- it works with new style objects - __getattribute__ does something
different
But frankly i was only trying to un
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sun Dec 21 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Mon Dec 22 12:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (failures=2) : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.5 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Sun Dec 21 20:36:57 EST 200
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:37:52PM -0500, Benji York wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
> > I have the following code that runs the tests in all my package's docs:
> >
> > def test_suite():
> > suite = unittest.TestSuite()
> > for path in \
> > glob(os.path
Hi there,
All right, I was getting a bit confused when it appeared you were
arguing against moving things at all, but you're basically in favor of
leaving the old APIs intact without explicitly breaking them.
I think we need to think of some way to signal that the "preferred
import location" of s
-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.
>>
>> I
