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

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

Nicola Larosa wrote:
[snip..]
>>>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.
> 
> 
> Let me know when you're able to let me play with it, too. :-)
> 
> 
> 

Hey - you can see the TODO list... let me know which bits you want to
take on ;-)

Seriously though - all the changes are pretty integrated and it makes
sense for me to do them all. Unfortunately implementing ``writein``
means refactoring the ``_parse`` method so I can use it. So until all
that lot is done.....

Shouldn't be *too* long though.

>>>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.
> 
> 
> Maybe it would, but first I'd like to understand why you ripped'em off
> already. ;-)
> 

I didn't *like* the initial implemntation. I thought you could achieve
the identical thing with a single function (method ?) and a dictionary.

Also the example ones looked horribly complicated and not *that* useful.
I'd prefer it if the examples we supply are at least comprehensible.

It's possible I was wrong and it's just because it was code I didn't
write :-)

I'd be quite happy for you to implement something - or I'll put
something back when I've done ConfigObj.

> 
> 
>>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'.
> 
> 
> Modularity is always a good idea, but it's hard, for anyone heavily bent on
> multithreading, to earn much respect with me, to put it bluntly.
> 

Hmmm.... I don't know enough to comment. But I couldn't resist putting
something....

> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Of the two main strong points of Twisted, I think that the support of many
> net protocols is the *least* important one. The concurrency model makes it
> a strong base for *any* mid-to-big sized project, that is not enough served
> by multiprocessing.
> 
> 
> 
>>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).
> 
> 
> You want Quixote's PTLs, man. You *really* want them. :-) What are they?
> Text generation through real Python, that's what. BTW, I share your dislike
> of embedded mini-languages for templating.
> 

I don't yet know you well enough to know when you're being facetious.
Are you serious that I would like PTL ?

Which do you think would be more of a fruitful starting point ? -
finding a twisted tutorial and ploughing in, or finding a twisted
tutorial and trying to find my way in....

> Nevow is much more than templating. The other two main points are form
> processing and trasparent page update through Javascript (a superset of the
> currently popular Ajax).
>