[albatross-users] Patch to 1.11pre2

[Andrew McNamara]

>> We record the input type - it might be possible to avoid the second
>> test.  I'll have to look at the code.
>
>So the test would check the type is image, and look for name.x in that
>case?  I'm not sure you can avoide a second test of some kind, but adding
>in the type makes this safer from weird names.

I think the "weird names" bit was what I was trying to avoid. The
performance cost for an added check is probably minor (although, in
general, the checking and iterating of attributes and cgi inputs is
probably an area ripe for optimisation).

>> Does it look like httpdapp could be fixed easily enough?
>
>It's not as easy as mod_python, which already supported duplicate headers.
>I could just alter the request object.  httpdapp is using a dict for
>headers though out it's code, and since the keys are the header names you
>can have two the same.
>
>I hope you are looking at version two, which I reverted back set_header
>and added in add_header; I didn't like changing the expected behaviour of
>set_header.  So since there is a seperat add_header function for the
>request object, you can set the httpdapp's request object to raise an
>error when add_header is called stating that method is not supported-
>until such time that the server code is revamped.

I think it's important that httpdapp be extended to support multiple
instances of a given header, although it's somewhat of a catch-22 -
without integrating your changes nobody will bother extending httpdapp.

I guess the answer is to integrate your chances and put out a snapshot
(we probably should stop calling them "release candidates"... 8-).
Hopefully we can fix httpdapp before the next release.

>> I think I like the old behaviour better - raise an exception - it's
>> saved my bacon on several occasions now, and makes debugging quicker.
>> Setting to None feels too implicit/magical/perl-like. 8-)
>
>When it was orgionally reported, it did nothing and raised no error.  I
>didn't know if the exception was a quick work around and what was in the
>TODO for later, or if that was to be permant.  Either way is better than
>nothing ;)

Indeed. I think I'll exercise my dictitorial rights and leave it as an
exception (I think we discussed this at the time the exception went in,
and while I wasn't convinced I've come to like it since).

>> Yep... a year ago... 8-)
>
>You guys have to be the only people I know who don't love to cross things
>off a todo list

Yeah. I use my "albatross" mail folder as a "todo" list also, so it gets
somewhat confusing. Feel free to throw things at us... 8-)

-- 
Andrew McNamara, Senior Developer, Object Craft
http://www.object-craft.com.au/