[Yum-devel] urlgrabber: timestamp check

[Michael Stenner]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:11:55PM -0500, Ryan Tomayko wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Michael Stenner wrote:
> >OK, I'm attaching both a patch to grabber.py and a little test program
> >to demonstrate how one might do this.  I'd really like input from you
> >and Ryan about whether this makes sense.  For the newly defined Error
> >number (which is for HTTPError), I've included special "code" and
> >"exception" attributes, which seems a little kludgy.
> 
> I don't think it's kludgy at all.

Hmm... OK.

> >However, I do kinda like returning a bit more information.  Before, 
> >the same
> >exception got raised as IOError and the code/message were just encoded
> >in the string.  That's OK to a user but it makes it hard to do things
> >like this.

> Yea. Not sure why we didn't do this in the first place.

OK, I'll tell you what.  I'll go through and start doing this
EVERYWHERE it makes sense.  I think that's what bothered me the
most... just having this be special.  I'm pretty sure there won't be
need for any compat breaks.

> >The only other way I thought of to solve the problem was to allow
> >callers to include custom urllib2 handlers.  That would really allow
> >a lot more flexibility, but I'd want to do it right, and that might
> >take a little thought.
> 
> I added that a while back. Not sure I like the way we did it though:
> 
>   opener = None
> 
>     Overrides the default urllib2.OpenerDirector provided to urllib2
>     when making requests.  This option exists so that the urllib2
>     handler chain may be customized.  Note that the range, reget,
>     proxy, and keepalive features require that custom handlers be
>     provided to urllib2 in order to function properly.  If an opener
>     option is provided, no attempt is made by urlgrabber to ensure
>     chain integrity.  You are responsible for ensuring that any
>     extension handlers are present if said features are required.
> 
> Not something for the feint of heart.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about that option.  That's not exactly what I
mean simply because you do have to do SO MUCH yourself if you go that
way.  I'll think about it and see if there's a fast, simple way to
just add handlers without overriding everything.

> I'd say go ahead and commit it. I don't see any downside and you fixed 
> a localization issue in there too :)

Well, I didn't really fix any localization issue.  It's just that
localizing '%s' doesn't really work, so I turned localization off :)

					-Michael
-- 
  Michael D. Stenner                            mstenner at ece.arizona.edu
  ECE Department, the University of Arizona                 520-626-1619
  1230 E. Speedway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85721-0104                 ECE 524G