Re: [Webware-discuss] proposed syntactic addition to the Session class

[Ian B. <ia...@co...>]

Tavis Rudd <ta...@ca...> wrote:
> I'd argue the same thing for req.fields['key'], res.cookies['key'],
> res.headers['key'], etc.  Later, if you wanted to reimplement
> req.fields as a method that returns the field object you could use
> Paul Dubuois' ActiveAttr mixin to preserve the user interface.

I don't think ActiveAttr should ever need to be used.  For things like
fields, cookies, and headers (which are all quite unambiguous), the
object that implements these interfaces is really just a shell.  As
such, it can easily be just as dynamic as the current system.

That is, res.cookies is an object which is firmly attached to res.
The initial implementation should leave that tie intact, and then
despite any changes elsewhere in HTTPResponse it shouldn't be
effected.

The class I posted a while ago (attached again, for argument's sake)
does this and is exactly as dynamic as the current system (and
backward compatible).  It also implements active attributes, but
that can be ignored for this discussion.

Anyway, while I love Smalltalk and understand why it does things its
way, Python isn't Smalltalk -- in particular, Smalltalk syntax makes
these getter and setter methods nice, but they aren't very nice in
Python.

  -- Ian