[Twisted-Python] Re: More on PB Copyable Errors
justinjohnson at gmail.com
Thu Dec 30 13:25:01 EST 2004
Oh yeah, right. I managed to entirely skip your comments on the
How about the attached patch?
On 30 Dec 2004 11:52:17 -0500, David Bolen <db3l at fitlinxx.com> wrote:
> Justin Johnson <justinjohnson at 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()
> 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 at twistedmatrix.com
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the Twisted-Python