Martin v. Löwis wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Marc-Andre, if the original patch (diff.txt) was applied: What *specific* change in that patch would break code? What *specific* code (C or Python) would break under that change?
[...]
Let's flesh this out some more and get a better understanding of what is needed and how the separation between the stream queue, the stream codec and the underlying codec implementation can be put to good use.
That really didn't answer the question: What would be technically wrong with accepting Walter's patches?
I smell over-designing: there is a specific problem at hand (incomplete reads resulting in partial decoding); any solution should attempt to *only* solve this problem, not any other problem.
The specific problem is that of providing a codec that can run in feeding mode where you can feed in data and read it in a way that allows incomplete input data to fail over nicely. Since this requires two head positions (one for the writer, one for the reader), a queue implementation is the right thing to use. We are having this discussion to find a suitable design to provide this functionality in a nice and clean way. I don't see anything wrong with this. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Aug 19 2004)
Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,FreeBSD for free ! ::::