On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:05:01 -0600, Brad Allen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Folks, this is the time for changes that break backward
compatibility.
Since we have not yet released 2.0 beta, there is still time to get
in
those kinds of changes. After the 2.0 beta release, changes that
break
backward compatibility should be deferred to the next major release
(3.0).
I'm all in favor of getting rid of the unnecessary underscores in
parameter names; those are supposed to be used for private methods,
so
I don't see how they make sense for keyword parameters. Maybe someone
with greater historical perspective could chime in an explain the
thinking?
_returns and its ilk have an underscore because they are considered to
be keywords with special meanings. i think the plan was to have
@rpc(some_param=String, some_other=Double, _returns=SomeClass)
def my_function(**kwargs):
in an effort to avoid duplication in definitions. you can still do it,
i think it looks nice.
burak
Also, for the __attributes__, those are generally reserved for Python
itself, right? A lot of framework developers use them but I don't
think it's a good idea, and not in keeping with PEP 8.
From PEP 8, the Python Style Guide at
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/
- __double_leading_and_trailing_underscore__: "magic" objects or
attributes that live in user-controlled namespaces. E.g.
__init__,
__import__ or __file__. Never invent such names; only use them
as documented.
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Chris Austin <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Tres Seaver <[email protected]>
wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/09/2010 12:18 PM, Chris Austin wrote:
> For some reason I didn't get an email for the pull request. Give
me a
> little bit and I'll take a look at it.
Thanks for merging it! I've got more changes coming, some of which
need
some discussion:
1. I want method descriptors to keep the list of faults passed to
the
'rpc' decorator. I have this one working already.
This would be fine with me. While we are at it, is everybody fine
with
dropping the single underscore from the decorator for items like
_returns?
I am asking because I am in the mist of a huge overhaul for the wsdl
engine
along with some supporting changes to the rpc decorator.
2. I want to emit the WSDL for faults of operations: types,
messages,
and parts. I'm part way hacking through this. AFAICT,
application-
defined faults are effectively unused: for instance, calling
'fault.add_to_schema(schema_entries)' blows up because the
emitted
WSDL is broken. Can anyone contradict me, here? I.e., is anyone
using application-defined faults at all?
This sounds right with the new tests I have been writing around the
wsdl
engine. There are lots of other little issues like it currently
stuffing
all of the services into a single service named after the App .
3. I want some way to suppress the wrapping of returned objects in
sequences (see issue 4,
https://github.com/soaplib/soaplib/issues#issue/4). I'm thinking
of maybe spelling that as a '_returns_direct' argument to
'rpc()'.
For my enlightenment: does anybody know the rationale for adding
the
sequence wrapper?
I can't comment on the historical decisions however; I just don't
know but I
can make up stuff if needed :)
This sounds fine with me. Let's think about dropping the
underscore on
the parameter however. Does anybody have an objection for altering
the
syntax in the rpc decorator slightly
currently -> @rpc(String, Integer, Double, ..., _returns=String)
proposed -> @rpc(String, Integer, Double, ..., _returns=String)
Also, I'd like to modify the way the instances of ClassSerializer
declare
class attributes by dropping the double underscore.
for example currently things look like this:
class MyModel(ClassSerializer):
__namespace__ = 'foo'
I'd like to make it cleaner like so:
class MyModel(ClassSerializer):
namespace = 'foo'
Also, to properly support ports and separate services I am
currently finishing tests for adding 'ports' and
'service_interface'
attributes to DefinitionBase along with a 'port' attribute for the
'rpc' decorator.
If no one objects I'll drop the (in my
opinion) superfluous underscores.
Cheers
Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [email protected]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk0BOJcACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7dRwCghFeR3QxWHU0Q37bzzuPd7kao
PBsAn2UEl204jYfghXHEmfM4z5LTxHK5
=YuNZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Soap mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/soap
_______________________________________________
Soap mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/soap
_______________________________________________
Soap mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/soap
_______________________________________________
Soap mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/soap
