[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Adonthell-devel] Item spec

From: Kai Sterker
Subject: Re: [Adonthell-devel] Item spec
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:37:43 +0100

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:07:05 +0100 Alexandre Courbot wrote:

> > Well, sometimes you just have to try something out. The simple torch
> > example already revealed a number of problems with the stuff I've
> > written in the original mail. Coding something doesn't hurt, as long
> > as we're ready to throw stuff away if we come up with something
> > better. I mean, we're doing this all the time :). 
> > 
> > Also, you have to start somewhere, otherwise we talk and talk and
> > nothing happens afterwards, as often was the case. Talking and
> > coding at the same time might get things actually done.
> > 
> > Besides, what we talk will surely benefit from the practical
> > experience we make with the code.
> You're also right. Still, some paper clearly describing it is cool as
> well :) I'll have a look at the code and see if something hits me. I
> suggest we start slaughtering the Python module in 0.4. Keep in mind
> that the Python module will only be used on the server side - we might
> use Python on the client as well, but only for convenience (SWIG &
> co). Do you want me to rewrite py_object or shall I concentrate on the
> tools and let you do? (there's nothing really special in it anyway!)

Uh, wait! The dialogue stuff makes use of the python module too. As it
is very basic, we should keep it on both sides. However, if we need more
functionality on the server side, we could easily extend it there.

Anyway, if all changes to the Python module are attribute access, I
could do that myself. If you plan more, then feel free :).

Just one thing I wonder: should we return python attributes as PyObject
and leave it to the requester to check their type an convert them as
neccessary. Or should py_object take care of that?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]