Dave, Can you comment again on what you think should be done here? I'd like to get this functionality into 2.0 if possible. If you're okay with my patch than I will try to get the tests written before the release. Otherwise I'm wondering if there is an alternative implementation that can be added before the release. I'd prefer not having to maintain local mods to Twisted. As a reminder for anyone else reading this, this is related to http://twistedmatrix.com/bugs/issue844. Thanks. Justin On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:15:08 -0600, Justin Johnson <justinjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
See comments below.
On 07 Jan 2005 16:20:08 -0500, David Bolen <db3l@fitlinxx.com> wrote: [snip]
Sorry on the delay - holidays and then I forgot about it :-(
I'm still on the fence with respect to having independent "jellyable" checks. My concern would be that having the independent checks of what is suitable for jellying can be fragile with respect to coupling with the actual jelly operation. Even with the jellyable and security checks there are some paths in the jellier code that could still fail the operation.
Can you clarify here? What paths are you referring to? I'd prefer to not duplicate those checks as well, but it seemed like the simplist way to accomplish my goal. It does sound like your understanding of the code is better than mine though.
I also think I liked your earlier attempts at keeping the change within the CopyableFailure class (I may have missed why that changed), although even there you'd have a double jelly since you'd have to check the jelly attempt in getStateToCopy. Although alternatively, CopyableFailure could just implement its own jellyFor (rather than getStateToCopy) which handled that more gracefully and with a single jelly attempt on the value.
-- David
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python