CONSTRUCT - Python's way of Ruby's "alias_method"
Ilias Lazaridis
importantly the "alias_method".
-
*IMPORT*
I would like to know, if this construct is valid, or if it can result in
problems (that I do not see as a newcomer):
1082 try:
1083 from django.rework.evolve import evolvedb
1084 except ImportError:
1085 def evolvedb():
1086 "Evolve Command Dummy"
1087 print 'Command evolvedb not imported'
1088 evolvedb.args =''
-
*PATCHING*
A second problem is, how to make the setup for users (testers) more
convenient. Is there e.g. any mechanism to apply a patch in an automated
manner (e.g. using a python library)?
-
*ALIAS_METHOD*
The django commands are hard-coded:
http://code.djangoproject.com/browser/django/trunk/django/core/management.py#L1180
thus elegant/dynamic additions of commands seem not possible.
Another possibility is to enlink (hook?) the functionality into an
existent function
Is there any way (beside a patch) to alter the behaviour to an existing
function. Is ther a python construct similar to the "alias_method" of Ruby:
(example from an simple evolution support for a ruby orm)
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# use "alias_method" to enlink the code
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------
class SqliteAdapter
alias_method :old_create_table, :create_table
def create_table(*args)
table_evolve(*args)
result = old_create_table(*args)
return result
end
end
http://lazaridis.com/case/persist/og-evolve.rb
-
-
-
If anyone is interested to verify the results in order to stabelize the
simple schema evolution support for django, please review the results
here:
http://case.lazaridis.com/wiki/DjangoProductEvaluation
http://case.lazaridis.com/wiki/DjangoSchemaEvolution
http://case.lazaridis.com/browser/django/rework/evolve.py
http://case.lazaridis.com/browser/django/rework/add_evolvedb_command.diff
.
Maric Michaud
> Another possibility is to enlink (hook?) the functionality into an
> existent function
>
> Is there any way (beside a patch) to alter the behaviour to an existing
> function. Is ther a python construct similar to the "alias_method" of Ruby:
>
every day in Zope, it's called "monkey patch" :
#patch_service.py
from toto import service
def my_impl(self, *args) :
old_result = self._old_method(*args)
# ...
return new_result
if not hasattr(service, '_old_method') :
service._old_method = service.method
service.method = my_impl
once this file is imported, all future calls to "method" of service instances
will use my_impl.
--
_____________
Maric Michaud
_____________
Aristote - www.aristote.info
3 place des tapis
69004 Lyon
Tel: +33 426 880 097
Tim N. van der Leeuw
Django groups.
Oops, you're not welcome there anymore, almost forgot.
But if merely reading the subject of a posting I already know who's the
poster, it's perhaps a bad sign.
Further readers of this thread might be interested in the discussions
linked from these pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilias_Lazaridis
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Ilias
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.softwaretools/tree/browse_frm/thread/f07832cf6d0094f0/ae6315fda51d50a1?rnum=1&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.java.softwaretools%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff07832cf6d0094f0%2Fae6315fda51d50a1%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3Dilias+EVALUATION%26#doc_ae6315fda51d50a1
EOT?
Duncan Booth
> I would like to know, if this construct is valid, or if it can result in
> problems (that I do not see as a newcomer):
>
> 1082 try:
> 1083 from django.rework.evolve import evolvedb
> 1084 except ImportError:
> 1085 def evolvedb():
> 1086 "Evolve Command Dummy"
> 1087 print 'Command evolvedb not imported'
> 1088 evolvedb.args =''
The only real problem here is that if django.rework.evolve imports
something else which doesn't exist you get your fallback code instead of
reporting the error. In other words there is a chance that you could mask a
deeper problem.
If this worries you then you could do:
try:
from django.rework.evolve import evolvedb
except ImportError, e:
if str(e).rsplit(' ')[-1] != 'django.rework.evolve':
raise
... rest of code here ...
Duncan Booth
> Is there any way (beside a patch) to alter the behaviour to an
> existing function. Is ther a python construct similar to the
> "alias_method" of Ruby:
This is a Python list. Would you care to explain what alias_method does?
>
> (example from an simple evolution support for a ruby orm)
>
> #----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------- # use "alias_method" to enlink the code
> #----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> class SqliteAdapter
> alias_method :old_create_table, :create_table
> def create_table(*args)
> table_evolve(*args)
> result = old_create_table(*args)
> return result
> end
> end
>
This looks like alias_method does nothing much more than an assignment. If
you want to override a method in a base class then you can do it something
like:
class SqliteAdapter(BaseClass):
old_create_table = BaseClass.create_table
def create_table(self, *args)
self.table_evolve(*args)
result = self.old_create_table(*args)
return result
but the more usual way is just to call the original method directly in the
base class.
class SqliteAdapter(BaseClass):
def create_table(self, *args)
self.table_evolve(*args)
result = BaseClass.create_table(self, *args)
return result
If that isn't what you are trying to achieve you'll have to explain more.
Maric Michaud
> but the more usual way is just to call the original method directly in the
> base class.
>
> class SqliteAdapter(BaseClass):
> def create_table(self, *args)
> self.table_evolve(*args)
> result = BaseClass.create_table(self, *args)
> return result
>
Yeah, this the right way to reuse ancestor's implementation of a method.
> If that isn't what you are trying to achieve you'll have to explain more.
I'm not a ruby programmer, but I understood it like this : the prupose is to
modify the behavior of an existing third-party class, in all application
(even in existing third party modules), without any code modifications
(traditional patch) in those modules.
Your proposal is not as good here, assuming BaseClass is defined in module
toto, you can still do toto.BaseClass = SqliteAdapter, but you must ensure
that this code is imported before any other where classes inherit from
BaseClass. The one I porpose in my other post is robust, several packages can
even patch the same method with no side effects.
Ilias Lazaridis
Ilias Lazaridis
> Le Jeudi 08 Juin 2006 15:15, Duncan Booth a écrit :
>> but the more usual way is just to call the original method directly in the
>> base class.
>>
>> class SqliteAdapter(BaseClass):
>> def create_table(self, *args)
>> self.table_evolve(*args)
>> result = BaseClass.create_table(self, *args)
>> return result
>>
>
> Yeah, this the right way to reuse ancestor's implementation of a method.
>
>> If that isn't what you are trying to achieve you'll have to explain more.
> I'm not a ruby programmer, but I understood it like this : the prupose is to
> modify the behavior of an existing third-party class, in all application
> (even in existing third party modules), without any code modifications
> (traditional patch) in those modules.
yes, you've understood right.
> Your proposal is not as good here, assuming BaseClass is defined in module
> toto, you can still do toto.BaseClass = SqliteAdapter, but you must ensure
> that this code is imported before any other where classes inherit from
> BaseClass. The one I porpose in my other post is robust, several packages can
> even patch the same method with no side effects.
Your suggestion is most possibly the relevant construct.
I'll post a note after changing the implementation.
Thank's a lot!
.
Ilias Lazaridis
I thin I understand.
If the exception is _not_ caused by 'django.rework.evolve', then it will
be raised, thus I can see what caused it.
Very nice!
.
Slawomir Nowaczyk
Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
#> *IMPORT*
#>
#> I would like to know, if this construct is valid, or if it can
#> result in problems (that I do not see as a newcomer):
The intricacies of import are far beyond me, but FWIW I do not see
anything wrong in this code.
#> Is there any way (beside a patch) to alter the behaviour to an
#> existing function.
You can just assign new function to the old name. There are a few
loops to hop through if you want to alter the behaviour of an existing
*method*... There is an example -- I do not know if a good one -- here:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/52192
--
Best wishes,
Slawomir Nowaczyk
( Slawomir...@cs.lth.se )
Strange how people who don't even know their neighbors
are extremely curious to know if there's extra-terrestrial life.
Slawomir Nowaczyk
"Tim N. van der Leeuw" <tim.lee...@nl.unisys.com> wrote:
#> Since your question is so much about Django, you might want to ask
#> on Django groups.
Now *that*, and the rest of your post, was uncalled for.
This thread is perfectly on topic for this list and the question asked
concerns *Python*, with django being only a use case.
--
Best wishes,
Slawomir Nowaczyk
( Slawomir...@cs.lth.se )
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Ilias Lazaridis
> Le Jeudi 08 Juin 2006 14:28, Ilias Lazaridis a écrit :
>> Another possibility is to enlink (hook?) the functionality into an
>> existent function
>>
>> Is there any way (beside a patch) to alter the behaviour to an existing
>> function. Is ther a python construct similar to the "alias_method" of Ruby:
>>
> No, there is no special construct to do this, but we do things very similar
> every day in Zope, it's called "monkey patch" :
>
> #patch_service.py
> from toto import service
>
> def my_impl(self, *args) :
> old_result = self._old_method(*args)
> # ...
> return new_result
>
> if not hasattr(service, '_old_method') :
> service._old_method = service.method
> service.method = my_impl
>
> once this file is imported, all future calls to "method" of service instances
> will use my_impl.
Ok, just a small problem when a _function_ is to be hooked.
Looking a the code in the debugger shows that the function "syncdb" is
correctly overridden. But when the code returns, "syncdb" has again it's
original value.
Can I import "syncdb" by reference instead by value, thus the change
'survives'?
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#syncdb_hook.py
from django.rework.evolve import evolvedb
from django.core.management import syncdb
def syncdb_new(*args) :
evolvedb()
syncdb_result = syncdb_old(*args)
return syncdb_result
if syncdb != syncdb_new:
syncdb_old = syncdb
syncdb = syncdb_new
.
Duncan Booth
>> #patch_service.py
>> from toto import service
>>
>> def my_impl(self, *args) :
>> old_result = self._old_method(*args)
>> # ...
>> return new_result
>>
>> if not hasattr(service, '_old_method') :
>> service._old_method = service.method
>> service.method = my_impl
>>
>> once this file is imported, all future calls to "method" of service
>> instances will use my_impl.
>
> Ok, just a small problem when a _function_ is to be hooked.
>
> Looking a the code in the debugger shows that the function "syncdb" is
> correctly overridden. But when the code returns, "syncdb" has again
> it's original value.
>
> Can I import "syncdb" by reference instead by value, thus the change
> 'survives'?
The difference is that Maric imported the module. To make the change affect
the original model you have to access the function as an attribute of its
module, not by importing the function from the module.
>
> #----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> #syncdb_hook.py
>
> from django.rework.evolve import evolvedb
> from django.core.management import syncdb
from django.core import management
>
> def syncdb_new(*args) :
> evolvedb()
> syncdb_result = syncdb_old(*args)
> return syncdb_result
>
> if syncdb != syncdb_new:
> syncdb_old = syncdb
> syncdb = syncdb_new
>
if management.syncdb != syncdb_new:
syncdb_old = management.syncdb
management.syncdb = syncdb_new
Ilias Lazaridis
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
>>> #patch_service.py
>>> from toto import service
>>>
>>> def my_impl(self, *args) :
>>> old_result = self._old_method(*args)
>>> # ...
>>> return new_result
>>>
>>> if not hasattr(service, '_old_method') :
>>> service._old_method = service.method
>>> service.method = my_impl
>>>
>>> once this file is imported, all future calls to "method" of service
>>> instances will use my_impl.
>> Ok, just a small problem when a _function_ is to be hooked.
>>
>> Looking a the code in the debugger shows that the function "syncdb" is
>> correctly overridden. But when the code returns, "syncdb" has again
>> it's original value.
>>
>> Can I import "syncdb" by reference instead by value, thus the change
>> 'survives'?
>
> The difference is that Maric imported the module. To make the change affect
> the original model you have to access the function as an attribute of its
> module, not by importing the function from the module.
ok, I understand.
the code below works, but has the limitation that I cannot import the
syncdb_hook within "django.core.management".
There is no way to import/get "syncdb" but mutable?
>> #syncdb_hook.py
>>
>> from django.rework.evolve import evolvedb
>> from django.core.management import syncdb
> from django.core import management
>
>> def syncdb_new(*args) :
>> evolvedb()
>> syncdb_result = syncdb_old(*args)
>> return syncdb_result
>>
>> if syncdb != syncdb_new:
>> syncdb_old = syncdb
>> syncdb = syncdb_new
>>
> if management.syncdb != syncdb_new:
> syncdb_old = management.syncdb
> management.syncdb = syncdb_new
works fine.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:28:39 +0300
> Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
> #> *IMPORT*
> #>
> #> I would like to know, if this construct is valid, or if it can
> #> result in problems (that I do not see as a newcomer):
>
> The intricacies of import are far beyond me, but FWIW I do not see
> anything wrong in this code.
>
> #> Is there any way (beside a patch) to alter the behaviour to an
> #> existing function.
>
> You can just assign new function to the old name. There are a few
> loops to hop through if you want to alter the behaviour of an existing
> *method*... There is an example -- I do not know if a good one -- here:
> http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/52192
This looks intresting, especially the comment, although I do not
understand what is meant by "creates a cycle in the object".
"
There is a Better Way to Add Methods To Classes, Moshe Zadka, 2001/03/15
This method creates a cycle in the object for no reason at all. The
following function will add any function to an instance in a cycle free way:
def add_method(self, method, name=None):
if name is None: name = method.func_name
class new(self.__class__): pass
setattr(new, name, method)
self.__class__ = new
Use as follows:
def pretty_str(self): pass
add_method(C(), pretty_str, '__str__')
"
Maric Michaud
> the code below works, but has the limitation that I cannot import the
> syncdb_hook within "django.core.management".
In [4]: from b import CONS
In [5]: import b
In [6]: b.CONS = 3
In [7]: CONS
Out[7]: 5
In [8]: from b import CONS
In [9]: CONS
Out[9]: 3
So, if you change one module name, a function or a class or a constant, you
must do it before it is imported, or you must reload modules using it. But
either are not always possible, and the later is not what you want to achieve
here as it will re-execute all initialisation code in those modules.
But think of that, a function is hopefully an object in python, hmmm :
In [1]: from temp import func
In [2]: func(5)
Out[2]: 5
In [3]: def g(s) : return s*2
...:
In [4]: func.func_code = g.func_code
In [5]: func(5)
Out[5]: 10
hey, that should work !
Ilias Lazaridis
Great Construct! Much flexibility!
I'll try the implementation tomorrow.
-
The actual Versions of the hooks can be found here:
http://case.lazaridis.com/browser/django/rework/syncdb_hook.py?rev=7
http://case.lazaridis.com/browser/django/rework/startproject_hook.py?rev=13
This construct has helped to simplify nearly all simplification goals:
http://case.lazaridis.com/wiki/DjangoSchemaEvolution
.