Re: [Rest2web-develop] Added an 'ip_addr' IPv4 address value test...

[Michael F. <mi...@pc...>]

Nicola Larosa wrote:
>>>I'm for consistency (where useful), so I'd use "check" wherever it's
>>>visible to the (programmer) user, either docs or API.
> 
> 
>>The current ConfigObj method is called ``validate`` as it does more than
>>check a single value.
>>I'm adding the ability to check individual values to the ``Section`` - a
>>method I will now call ``check``.
> 
> 
> I take this as a "go ahead" with the "test" -> "check" renaming. :-)
> 

I thought I'd agreed. Anyway - no problem, we've completely broken
backwards compatibility anyway (in lots of good ways - but anything
using the new system is going to have to change code already).

I let Mark Andrews know that there was development work going on, but
never heard back from him. He hasn't blogged for ages either - real life
must be intruding, terrible stuff.

> 
> 
>>On some platforms (like my PDA) importing socket is a non-trivial
>>action. I'm not sure if struct is available for *all* platforms (not all
>>the stdlib is implemented for all platforms - so dependency on a c
>>module for functionality that is unlikely to be used by many users....).
> 
> 
> That's a valid point (and I'd *like* Python on my Palm :-) ).
> 
> 
> 
>>Anyway - it's academic if we move that out into a separate module or
>>move the import statements.
> 
> 
> I'd move the imports anyway, whether we separate the functions or not.
> 

Cool - I'll leave you to do it next edit. I've done a couple of new
articles for my website (done my Romania blog and part II of my life
story as articles) - so I'm returning to editing ConfigObj.

Nice one for the restructuring by the way.

> 
> 
>>>But even before that, I'd place these two methods in a separate "utils.py"
>>>module, and maybe import *them* on demand.
> 
> 
>>I like the idea of keeping it as a single file if we can - but then it's
>>nice to include 'extra' tests that don't need to be part of the core
>>dist. Whatever you think best really.
> 
> 
> For my use case, the IP address value is necessary, I wouldn't want to move
> it to some extra module. So let's keep everything local, at least until
> there's other stuff to be included that would make the module too unwieldy.
> 

Ok - do you think it's worth implementing a generic 'regex' test (that
leaves values as strings), with a standard dict of (any ?) regexes.

> 
> 
>>What I really want is a way into twisted/nevow with WSGI... knowing
>>where to start is the problem.
> 
> 
> AFAIK, there were attempts to give a WSGI interface to Twisted, but it was
> harder than expected. WSGI was mainly thought for multithreaded app
> servers: this is hard to reconcile with Twisted concurrency model, and
> leads to suboptimal results.
> 
> I think that Nevow may work through WSGI, but its native environment is
> direct Twisted.
> 
> I'd like to be proven wrong in all this, of course, but Twisted has this
> tendency to rebuild the world in its image. :-)
> 

Right.. hmm.. trying to fight my way through buzz words. I have a lot of
respect for Ian Bicking and the WSGI crew. I also like the idea of being
'back end independent'.

I am also reasonably convinced that twisted is the way forward for any
decent web application - so if they're not compatible... then so be it.

I'm interested in Nevow... *but* I like the ultra simplicity of
'embedded_code'. I don't yet understand what Nevow has to offer that is
more than templating. In fact most templating languages seem to me just
another new language (albeit simpler) to avoid embedding python - when
embedding python code is much more powerful (and I like Python).

Best Regards,

Fuzzy
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python