Am 15.01.2012 17:13, schrieb Chris Angelico:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Heiko Wundram<modeln...@modelnine.org> wrote:
I don't know the prevalence of suds, but I guess there's more people than me
using it to query SOAP-services - all of those will be affected if the
hash() output is changed. Additionally, if hash() isn't stable between runs
(the randomized hash() solution which is preferred, and would also be my
preference), suds caching becomes completely useless. And for the results,
see above.
Or you could just monkey-patch it so that 'hash' points to an old
hashing function. If the current hash() is kept in builtins as (say)
hash_320() or hash_272() or something, then anyone who wants the old
version of the hash can still get it.
Or even easier: overwrite the default caching module (called FileCache)
with something that implements "sensible" caching, for example by using
the complete URL (with special characters replaced) of the DTD as a
cache index, instead of hash()ing it. ;-)
There's "workarounds", I know - and I may be implementing one of them if
the time comes. Again, my mail was only to point at the fact that there
are (serious) projects out there relying on the "stableness" of hash(),
and that these will get bitten when hash() is replaced. Which is not a
bad thing if you ask me. ;-)
--
--- Heiko.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
