[clam-devel] ConfigurationProxy: següent passa

[David García Garzón]

On Thursday 26 May 2011 22:33:34 Xavier Serra Román wrote:
> On May 26, 2011, at 10:13 PM, David García Garzón wrote:
> > Forwarded to the list, sorry, the original message from Xavi was in
> > catalan.
> > 
> > A Dijous 26 Maig 2011 18:22:17, Xavier Serra Román va escriure:
> >> Ei David!
> >> l'altre dia vam parlar del camí a seguir amb el configuration i vas dir
> >> Add, Removes... Amb això vols dir per exemple:
> >> proxy["new_attribute"] = 'newvalue' ?
> >> Fins ara sempre consideravem això com a AttributeError. I en cas
> >> afirmatiu, com es fa? He vist el AddAttr_ de la interfície de
> >> DynamicType però pren dos valors enters i és protected
> >> 
> >> Bye!
> > 
> > We should concentrate first in being able to do the same things that we
> > support right now with dummy: Plain type checked attributes but no
> > optionality (the add/remove thing you asked) and no composite
> > attributes. Looking at the source i still miss some features for the
> > clam config proxy:
> > - Errors on accessing wrong attribs should match the ones raised by dummy
> > - implement __setitem__ to set the config value.
> > - Error on type missmatch al __setitem__
> > - keys()
> > 
> > Once this is done, comparing dummy and clam tests they should be quite
> > uniform. We can postpone optional and composite attributes implementation
> > while going forward to something that it is usable yet, that is, being
> > able to inspect the configuration of an actual processing inside a
> > network and reconfiguring it. So lets consider how to implement
> > Clam_NetworkProxy::processingConfig, first to get the actual
> > configuration, then to modify it (how to apply the configuration which
> > was a tricky issue).
> 
> Been thinking about that. What do you think of creating a function inside
> Clam_NetworkProxy that returns a ConfigurationProxy (something like the
> factory method we have inside Clam_ConfigurationProxy) and then pass that
> method to the Configuration python object? It should look something like
> this (in the Processing.py __init__):
> 	self.__dict__["_config"] = Configuration.Configuration(
> proxy.processingConfigProxy(processingType) )

It is not about the type, it is about the processing itself. you want the 
processingConfigProxy to have access to the actual configuration values. So 
the current interface should work. Just that what proxy.processingConfig(name) 
should return is now a proxy (either dummy or clam), not a dict.