André a écrit :
> On Mar 28, 6:39 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 1:58 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip)
>>> But to be honest: you are thinking much to far there - after all, it's
>>> all *your* code, and inside one interpreter. A real isolation isn't
>>> available anyway.
>>> So just do what fullfills the functional requirements.
>>
>> Since I want to have a uniform call to all plugins, would it make
>> sense to split out the attributes that I do want to share to a
>> separate class and then simply create a new instance of that class and
>> store it in the main class?
>>
>> For instance
>>
>> ...
>> self.utilities = Utilities(self)
>> ...
>> plugin.do(msg,self.utilities)
>
> I would bypass the step of creating a new instance and write instead
> plugin.do(msg, self)
> thus having access to all properties/methods of the calling object.
> Why restrict it?...
+1 on this.
And FWIW, *if* you later find out you *really* need to restrict access
to the caller object's attribute (ie: 'self'), it will be as simple as
wrapping it in a decorator (design pattern, not function decorator)
object that will take care of this, ie (Q&D naive implementation):
class RestrictedSelf(object):
allowed_attributes = ('dothis', 'dothat')
def __init__(self, realself):
self.realself = realself
def __getattr__(self, name):
if name.startswith('_') or name not in self.allowed_attributes:
raise AttributeError(
'access to %s.%s is forbidden' % (self.realself, name)
)
return getattr(self.realself, name)
And in the call to the plugin:
plugin.do(msg, RestrictedSelf(self))
<mode='xp-guru'>
But my bet is that YAGNI, so to make a long story short: start with the
simplest thing that could possibly work !-)
</mode>
HTH
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
