I would go with: Resource(object_parameters) # for a pythonic interface or resource.put(object_parameters) # for a light wrapper around the REST service
To me, store has far to much baggage. On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Christopher Bare < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the good advice! Jim's comment about being explicit about the > actor (in this case, my service wrapper) resonated with me, so I'm leaning > towards: > > rest_service.store(my_object) > > The soundcloud thing is still around, just at a different URL ( > https://github.com/soundcloud/python-api-wrapper) that the one linked by > Alex Martelli. It's a pretty good example, probably worth spending some > time reading. > > Thanks! > > - Chris > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Toby Champion <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ... except that was 4 years ago and two of his three examples have >> broken links. D'uh. >> >> >> On 4/24/13 9:08 PM, Toby Champion wrote: >> >> Alex Martelli answers this SO question on this topic: >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1288198/can-someone-suggest-a-well-designed-python-wrapper-of-a-rest-api >> >> Toby >> >> On 4/24/13 8:25 PM, Jim Gray wrote: >> >> You usually want to follow the pattern actor.action(data) and not >> data.action(). Better grammar and no confusion about which actor performs >> action. >> >> It is also more DRY and more friendly to duck typing. Which objects can >> .store()? >> >> If you really want to do it the second way, consider using decorators >> such that my_object inherits the relevant bits from rest_service. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> >
