* Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
01.03.12 16:47, André Malo написав(ла):
On Thursday 01 March 2012 15:17:35 Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
This is the first rational use of frozendict that I see. However, a deep copy is still necessary to create the frozendict. For this case, I believe, would be better to "freeze" dict inplace and then copy-on-write it.
In my case it's actually a half one. The data mostly comes from memcache ;) I'm populating the object and then I'm done with it. People wanting to modify it, need to copy it, yes. OTOH usually a shallow copy is enough (here).
What if people modify dicts in deep?
that's the "here" part. They can't [1]. These objects are typically ROLists of RODicts. Maybe nested deeper, but all RO* or other immutable types. I cheated, by deepcopying always in the cache, but defining __deepcopy__ for those RO* objects as "return self". nd [1] Well, an attacker could, because it's still based on regular dicts and lists. But thatswhy it's not a security feature, but a safety net (here). -- "Solides und umfangreiches Buch" -- aus einer Rezension <http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>