Oh yeah, right. I managed to entirely skip your comments on the security options. How about the attached patch? On 30 Dec 2004 11:52:17 -0500, David Bolen <db3l@fitlinxx.com> wrote:
Justin Johnson <justinjohnson@gmail.com> writes:
A new patch is attached.
If we're going with the instance check, I'd probably stick with Jellyable and not Copyable (since you might have a referenceable or viewable exception object) - that matches the actual jelly() implementation.
I'm still wondering if just trying to jelly the object isn't the best approach in the end though, since checking the instance class excludes the cases where the security options permits the object to be sent (e.g., I might use the security options to let standard Python exceptions through without having my own Copyable subclasses).
From a prior post of yours:
Option 1 is also most like the way things work today for sending anything that isn't an error. The only reason CopyableFailure exists
Close - option 1 (Jellyable subclass) is one half of the jellying process - the other half is the type being allowed by the security options and being supported by the default jelly handling of native Python types.
-- David
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python