On 04/10/12 16:56, Stefan Andersson wrote:
On 4 October 2012 17:27, Burak Arslan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/10/12 14:13, Stefan Andersson wrote:
Hi,
I have fault type now with support for other subelements both in
respons and wsdl, but now when I synced up with your master repo I get
circular import problem because of changes in model/complex.py, my new
fault.py imports ComplexModelMeta and now complex.py imports stuff
from primitive and primitive imports fault.
The way I see around this is to implement a copy of ComplexModelMeta
in fault or try break it out from complex.py without any dependencies
on complex.py, what would you prefer?
Can you show me your work so far? Why did you need ComplexModel machinery in
Fault?
I have commited it to the branch restriction (commit:
https://github.com/norox/spyne/commit/6878512695aa3db1ffbcfdc12c90c740072bfdce)
Hi,
First, why not base on ComplexModelBase if your metaclass is
ComplexModelBaseMeta?
Common sense says that _base -> primitive -> complex -> fault is a
plausible dependency graph and the thing that is actually out of place
here is primitive importing fault.
So "the right thing" to do here is to move the {to,from}_string logic to
ProtocolBase to avoid primitive importing fault.
If that'd be too much work for you,
_base -> primitive -> complex
\-> fault
also sort of makes sense (this is currently the case without your
patch), but you'd have to re-implement a ComplexModelMetaLite as moving
some of the code in complex.py to another module won't break the circle.
This is a hack and I would not really prefer this solution. I also don't
think it'd be less time-consuming because the spyne.mode.complex module
is quite mature as it covers a lot of corner cases that took a while to
run into.
So all things considered, I think you should follow the first option.
Best,
Burak
//Stefan
On 2 October 2012 12:56, Stefan Andersson <[email protected]> wrote:
Ok, I will take look and see how much work it is, would make
integration with some system we have easier.
On 2 October 2012 10:54, Burak Arslan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/10/12 09:48, Stefan Andersson wrote:
Hi,
Do you know if anyone have been looking into adding other subelements
to SOAP Faults?
According to
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383507
it's supported, "Other Fault subelements MAY be present, provided they
are namespace-qualified" (in the end of 4.4 right before 4.4.1).
Hello,
No, and I had no idea it was allowed (must have missed that line).
Burak
_______________________________________________
Soap mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/soap
