[mod_python] util.FieldStorage

The benefit of being more dictionary-like is just convenience. As
util.FieldStorage doesn't have all the dictionary methods then I usually
just convert it to a real dictionary.

However, I'd like to also keep the getfirst and getlist methods, which
would mean writing my own class to inherit from dict and converting
between them. I can't easily inherit util.FieldStorage because all my
code has standalone unittests which can't import _apache

It's not the end of the world if util.FieldStorage isn't updated, but it
would make my life a lot simpler ;-) I may try and have a go at updating
it - is there any documentation on the best way to provide
patches/unittests for ModPython?

Brian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Dumpleton [mailto:grahamd at dscpl.com.au]
> Sent: 26 October 2006 11:12
> To: Brian Bird
> Cc: mod_python at modpython.org 'mod_python at modpython.org'
> Subject: Re: [mod_python] util.FieldStorage
> 
> Yes, FieldStorage in 3.3 is broken in as much as add_field() if called
> after the first time that the 'dictionary' attribute is accessed in
> some way,
> does not result in that value ending up in the dictionary. Thus it is
> not
> visible to __getitem__(), has_key() etc.
> 
> Something else to fix. :-(
> 
> Graham
> 
> On 26/10/2006, at 7:56 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> 
> > The util.FieldStorage implementation in mod_python 3.3 is quite a
bit
> > different to what is used in older versions of mod_python and which
> > you based your changes upon. Thus your changes are not compatible
> > with the new code base.
> >
> > Some have talked about making the new implementation of the
> > FieldStorage class more dictionary like than it is, but no one has
> > stepped up to provide any changes.
> >
> > To be honest I haven't actually looked into how FieldStorage is
> > implemented as someone outside of the core developers provided
> > the updated code and it was integrated by someone other than
> > myself. Looking at the code now, I actually think it might be a bit
> > broken. I'll have to do some playing with the code.
> >
> > BTW, what benefits do you think you get if it is more dictionary
like?
> > I am not sure I understand the reason for making such changes in
> > the first place.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> > On 26/10/2006, at 7:14 PM, Brian Bird wrote:
> >
> >> Is there anything in the works to make util.FieldStorage act more
> >> like a real dictionary? Specifically, it doesn't support the
> >> __setitem__, __delitem__ methods. Since the documentation states
> >> "it can be treated like a dictionary" I was surprised to find
> >> these methods missing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I know it's easy to change it to a real dictionary to get these
> >> methods, but then you lose the (very useful) getlist() method. At
> >> first glance it doesn't look like much work to add the extra
> >> methods (but I haven't looked at how it may affect values which
> >> aren't StringField's).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I've just looked in the latest subversion and found that the items
> >> () method is now in util.FieldStorage, as well as a method
> >> add_field() which looks suspiciously like __setitem__ should, but
> >> no sign of a __delitem__. However, there now seems to be a
> >> self.dictionary object which could be useful - perhaps all
> >> unrecognised methods should be passed onto self.dictionary in the
> >> __getattr__ instead of raising an AttributeError?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I've put below what I thought needed adding to the
> >> util.FieldStorage class before I noticed self.dictionary in case
> >> it's any help.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ### Disclaimer - completely untested! J ###
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> def __setitem__(self, key, value):
> >>
> >>     self.list.append(util.Field(key, cStringIO.StringIO(key),
> >> "text/plain", {}, None, {}))
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> def __delitem__(self, key):
> >>
> >>     for item in self.list:
> >>
> >>         if item.name == key:
> >>
> >>             self.list.remove(item)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> def items(self):
> >>
> >>     result = []
> >>
> >>     for key in self.keys():
> >>
> >>         result.append((key, self[key]))
> >>
> >>     return result
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> def update(self, d):
> >>
> >>     for k in d.keys():
> >>
> >>         self[k] = d[k]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mod_python mailing list
> > Mod_python at modpython.org
> > http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python