Hi Yuppie!

On 29 Dec 2005, at 21:20, yuppie wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005, at 10:51, yuppie wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Also I'd like to change things like:
    node = property(_exportNode, _importNode)
    def __exportNode(self):
        return self._exportNode()
    def __importNode(self, *args)
    node = property(__exportNode, __importNode)
To allow proper subclass overriding and avoid the dead chicken of having to redefine the node property each time.
But in my (complex) setup it revealed an unintended side effect. There are actually 3 useful methods when doing export (also valid for import): - export as simple node for its parent file (just the <object name="foo" meta_type="bar"> part),
- export as full node tree,
- export as XML body using the "full node" code.


Before, the fact that you defined or not
   node = property(_exportNode, _importNode)
made the export "do the right thing", as
- _extractObjects calls exporter.node, thus calls the last node property defined, whereas
 - _exportBody calls self._exportNode(), thus inherits
This is *very* implicit and magic, and would benefit from some refactoring...

Well. That's the way property() works. Your change adds magic because it makes property() inherit its methods.

I know it's the way property works, but it's usually (and also by me) considered a hindrance, because people are used to see methods inherited.

The current status of the code is that exports of more that one level are currently not correct.
It seems there's no unit test for it...

There are no real unit tests for it, but there are many unit tests for adapters using those base classes. These are at the same time integration tests for the base classes in GenericSetup.utils. Some CMFCore tests are failing after your change.

I'll fix this in a few days unless someone is interested to do it before then.

I don't think it's a good idea to make obviously incomplete checkins to the trunk. Why didn't you create a branch?

At the time I made the proposal I really tought it had no impact. And I fucked up my testing due to the numerous sandboxes I have. I've reverted it for now.

I'll answer the rest of your email when I've thought more about this whole business :)


Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France)   Director of R&D
+33 1 40 33 71 59   http://nuxeo.com   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to