[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Lib xmlrpclib.py, 1.38, 1.39
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Modified Files: xmlrpclib.py Log Message: accept datetime.datetime instances when marshalling; dateTime.iso8601 elements still unmarshal into xmlrpclib.DateTime objects Index: xmlrpclib.py ... +if datetime and isinstance(value, datetime.datetime): +self.value = value.strftime(%Y%m%dT%H:%M:%S) +return ... [and similarly later] ... Fred, is there a reason to avoid datetime.datetime's .isoformat() method here? Like so: import datetime print datetime.datetime(2005, 2, 10, 14, 0, 8).isoformat() 2005-02-10T14:00:08 A possible downside is that you'll also get fractional seconds if the instance records a non-zero .microseconds value. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Lib xmlrpclib.py, 1.38, 1.39
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:09, Tim Peters wrote: Fred, is there a reason to avoid datetime.datetime's .isoformat() method here? Like so: Yes. The XML-RPC spec is quite vague. It claims that the dates are in ISO 8601 format, but doesn't say anything more about it. The example shows a string without hyphens (but with colons), so I stuck with eactly that. A possible downside is that you'll also get fractional seconds if the instance records a non-zero .microseconds value. There's nothing in the XML-RPC spec about the resolution of time, so, again, I'd rather be conservative in what we generate. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake at acm.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Lib xmlrpclib.py, 1.38, 1.39
[Tim]
Fred, is there a reason to avoid datetime.datetime's .isoformat()
method here? Like so:
Yes. The XML-RPC spec is quite vague. It claims that the dates are in ISO
8601 format, but doesn't say anything more about it. The example shows a
string without hyphens (but with colons), so I stuck with eactly that.
Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have
a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink.
A possible downside is that you'll also get fractional seconds if the
instance records a non-zero .microseconds value.
There's nothing in the XML-RPC spec about the resolution of time, so, again,
I'd rather be conservative in what we generate.
dt.replace(microsecond=0).isoformat()
suffices for that much. Tack on .replace('-', '') to do the whole job.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Lib xmlrpclib.py, 1.38, 1.39
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:44, Tim Peters wrote:
Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have
a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink.
Hmm, that's right (ISO 8601:2000, section 5.4.2). Sigh.
dt.replace(microsecond=0).isoformat()
suffices for that much. Tack on .replace('-', '') to do the whole job.
Yep, that would work too.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake at acm.org
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Lib xmlrpclib.py, 1.38, 1.39
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:44, Tim Peters wrote: Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink. I've posted a note on the XML-RPC list about this. There doesn't seem to be anything that describes the range of what's accepted and produced by the various XML-RPC libraries, but I've not looked hard for it. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake at acm.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Lib xmlrpclib.py, 1.38, 1.39
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:32:14 -0500, Fred L. Drake, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:44, Tim Peters wrote: Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink. I've posted a note on the XML-RPC list about this. There doesn't seem to be anything that describes the range of what's accepted and produced by the various XML-RPC libraries, but I've not looked hard for it. Is there any surprise here? =) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Lib xmlrpclib.py, 1.38, 1.39
[Tim] Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink. [Fred] Hmm, that's right (ISO 8601:2000, section 5.4.2). Sigh. Ain't your fault. I didn't remember that I had seen the XML-RPC spec before, in conjunction with its crazy rules for representing floats. It's a very vague doc indeed. Anyway, some quick googling strongly suggests that many XML-RPC implementors don't know anything about 8601 either, and accept/produce only the non-8601 format inferred from the single example in the spec. Heh -- kids wink. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
