On Mar 8, 10:09 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 04:09 -0800, Simon G. wrote:
> > Good Evening Djuggernauts,
>
> > I've spent some time looking over the email related tickets in Trac,
> > and think I've got them sorted out a bit. I'm hoping to spur some
> > discussion on some of these, so here's a brief recap.
>
> Nice work, again, Simon.
Yes, good work!
> > #3366 - objectify send_mass_mail parameters
> > This aims to clean up the send_mass_mail arguments by plugging them
> > into an object. This looks fairly sensible, and has a patch, but has
> > some backwards incompat. issues. This needs a design decision - and if
> > it's "yes", then the other tickets will probably need to be rewritten
> > to take this into account.
The send_mail() and send_mass_mail() could be re-implemented to
maintain backwards compatibility.
> If things like #1541 are deemed useful, this is a probably a good idea.
> Particularly because so many of the arguments are optional.
>
> I'm not sure why Gary wants to use an object, rather than a dictionary,
> since dictionaries are often easier to construct in client code if
> you're doing it all in once place. There's also nothing really object-y
> about the data: it's just a bag of name/value pairs. Using an object
> makes using the values easier (foo.bar versus foo["bar"]), but creating
> them is more verbose.
I figured an object would be nice since we have a clump of related
data and could have some nice methods for working with that data, like
send(), add_attachment(), __str__(), etc. I had just written a lot of
code that sent different emails and was getting fed up with all the
tuples.
A dictionary would be a little awkward since you don't exactly have
required keys. Verboseness might be slightly increased, but so is
readability and introspection.
message = {'to': email_list, 'from': [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'subject': "Test",
'body': "hello world"}
or
message = EmailMessage(to=email_list, from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
subject="Test", body="hello world)
Criticism welcome.
> The principle seems sound; we should decide about this pre-1.0.
I asked Jacob to take a quick look at this ticket during the PyCon
sprint. His comments were (1) the send method on EmailMessage is
kinda neat and (2) we would need to keep send_mail() and
send_mass_mail() functions around for backwards compatibility, but
could deprecate them for 1.0. From my standpoint, however, he made no
definite decision.
> For my money, #3472 and #2897 look like important ones that need fixing
> soon. #3366 looks like a good idea for period between 0.96 and 1.0
> because of the backwards-compat changes. For the rest, I'm willing to
> defer to others, since I don't use them and so am probably being too
> negative.
I agree that #3472 and #2897 are probably the two most important.
Other than that, I would like multipart and BCC capabilities because I
think these have good use cases, like HTML+plaintext newsletters for
example.
Gary
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
