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)
into:
def __exportNode(self):
return self._exportNode()
def __importNode(self, *args)
self._importNode(*args)
node = property(__exportNode, __importNode)
To allow proper subclass overriding and avoid the dead chicken
of having to redefine the node property each time.
Done.
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.
Correct.
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
--
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
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
