On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:22 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
have headers and payload. The payload can be of any
type, though I think it generally breaks down into "strings" for
sigh Why are you back-tracking?
I'm not. Sleep deprivation on makes it seem like that.
The payload should be of an appropriate object type. Atomic object types will have their content stored as string or bytes [nb I use Python 3 terminology throughout]. Composite types (multipart/*) won't need string or bytes attributes AFAICS.
Start by implementing the application/octet-stream and text/plain;charset=utf-8 object types, of course.
Yes. See my lament about using inheritance for this.
It does seem
to make sense to think about headers as text header
names and text header values.
I disagree. IMHO, structured header types should have object values, and something like
While I agree, there's still a need for a higher level API that make
it easy to do the simple things.
message['to'] = "Barry 'da FLUFL' Warsaw firstname.lastname@example.org"
should be smart enough to detect that it's a string and attempt to (flexibly) parse it into a fullname and a mailbox adding escapes, etc. Whether these should be structured objects or they can be strings or bytes, I'm not sure (probably bytes, not strings, though -- see next exampl). OTOH
message['to'] = b'''"Barry 'da.FLUFL' Warsaw" email@example.com'''
should assume that the client knows what they are doing, and should parse it strictly (and I mean "be a real bastard", eg, raise an exception on any non-ASCII octet), merely dividing it into fullname and mailbox, and caching the bytes for later insertion in a wire-format message.
I agree that the Message class needs to be strict. A parser needs to
be lenient; see the .defects attribute introduced in the current email
package. Oh, and this reminds me that we still haven't talked about
idempotency. That's an important principle in the current email
package, but do we need to give up on that?
In that case,
I think you want the values as unicodes, and probably
the headers as unicodes containing only ASCII. So your table would
be strings in both cases. OTOH, maybe your application cares about the raw underlying encoded data, in which case the header names are probably still strings of ASCII-ish unicodes and the values are bytes. It's this distinction (and I think the competing use cases) that make a true Python 3.x API for email more complicated.
I don't see why you can't have the email API be specific, with message['to'] always returning a structured_header object (or maybe even more specifically an address_header object), and methods like
"""To: "Barry 'da.FLUFL' Warsaw" firstname.lastname@example.org"""
b"""To: "Barry 'da.FLUFL' Warsaw" email@example.com"""
Then have email.textview.Message and email.wireview.Message which provide a simple interface where message['to'] would invoke .build_header_as_text() and .build_header_in_wire_format() respectively.
This seems similar to Glyph's basic idea, but with a different spelling.
this stuff makes me nostalgic for the sloppy happy
days of Python 2.x
Can I have my uucp address back now? -Barry