Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 26 >>


Permalink 02:19:41 pm, by admin Email , 408 words   English (US)
Categories: IT, Python

Python concurrency syntax

via Bill de hÓra, I ran across this thread on LtU wherein Peter Van Roy comments:

The real problem is not threads as such; it is threads plus shared mutable state. To solve this problem, it's not necessary to throw away threads. It is sufficient to disallow mutable state shared between threads (mutable state local to one thread is still allowed).

...and Allan McInnes adds:

The "problem with threads" lies in the current approach to sharing state by default, and "pruning away nondeterminism" to get a correctly functioning system.

...and "dbfaken" adds:

Perhaps we should have strong syntax distinctions for mutation.

Since the first versions of Dejavu (my Python mediated-DB/ORM), I've noticed that this "pruning away nondeterminism" approach is exactly the wrong direction for systems which are designed to be thread-safe; we could instead explore languages and systems which allow us to "prune away determinism". By that I mean, mutable state should not be shared between threads by default; any mutable state which needs to be shared should be explicitly declared as such. This would make systems like Dejavu much simpler to create, use, and maintain.

I've often wondered what a "strong syntax distinction for [shared] mutation" would look like in Python. The simplest solution would probably have to:

  1. Make class.__dict__'s immutable. This is a natural choice given the normal usage patterns of classes by developers in the wild: generally, a class exists to share methods between instances. There are valid use cases for classes which are mutable, but they are rare; perhaps a sentinel of some kind provided by object could re-enable mutability for classes, but it should be off by default.
  2. Make all module.__dict__'s immutable. This has already been suggested on python-dev (IIRC by GvR himself), although I believe it was suggested as a way to reduce monkeypatching.
  3. Provide a @shared annotation for explicitly declaring shared mutable data.

This is just one solution to a small set of use cases: threaded programs where the explicit shared state is small compared to the total lines of code. I haven't the experience to state whether such a model is inherently damaging to other concurrent needs and designs. It has the benefit, however, of having little impact on single-threaded programs.

Would such a feature help catapult Python into the "large systems" space?


Permalink 11:56:50 am, by fumanchu Email , 263 words   English (US)
Categories: IT, General

The Fu Filter

All systems fail, and complex systems fail in a nearly infinite number of ways, some anticipated, many unanticipated. You could publish a large manual for how to deal with every anticipated failure, but for sufficiently-complex systems, the labor of writing such a manual far outweighs the benefit of having it. Heck, the labor of reading such a manual far outweighs the benefits. Even the labor of advertising the manual outweighs the benefits. And let's not forget version control, editing, publishing, distribution, recollection, authorization, errata, indexing, and a host of other system-management duties.

Take laptop overheating. Yes, it happens. Yes, damage is done. But the damage of creating a new system to usefully and efficiently communicate the dangers of laptop overheating to all laptop users in your company is probably far greater.

But people still try. And it takes a long time to explain the above. Wouldn't it be great if you could use a single short phrase to mean all that?

Here's my contribution to the world of Getting Things Done: the Fu Filter. Use it to imply that the issue in question is not worth addressing in any meaningful way, because to do so would be more trouble than it's worth. For example, you could tell someone that laptop overheating "doesn't pass the Fu Filter." Those of you with sufficient computing experience may wish to spell it "Foo Filter" in honor of all foo everywhere. Since "fu" can mean happiness (with the right tone), you can also think of this as the "Happiness Filter".


Permalink 03:55:32 pm, by fumanchu Email , 23 words   English (US)
Categories: CherryPy

It's official: CherryPy rocks


CherryPy rocks

No, really. It rocks. Rocks, rocks, rocks.

(Thanks, jamwt!)


Permalink 06:08:42 pm, by fumanchu Email , 129 words   English (US)
Categories: IT

You are what you code

Hey, you. Do you realize what you're writing? The long-standing IT joke is that you always end up coding your own job out of existence. But what are you coding yourself into?

  • You're writing a framework that turns website creation into an assembly line. Do you really want to work on an assembly line?
  • You're writing an API that wraps a well-understood common object model with a domain-specific language. Do you really want to be an expert on a language nobody else knows?
  • You're writing a program that needs regular maintenance. Do you really want to clean software toilets for a living?
  • You're writing a community tool with a moderator mode. Do you really want to be a bouncer for the rest of your life?

Nobody else does, either.


Permalink 02:21:23 pm, by admin Email , 572 words   English (US)
Categories: Python, CherryPy, WSGI

PyCon 2007 and CherryPy

PyCon 2007 is nearing a close; here are some notes on how it affected CherryPy:

Web application deployment

Chad Whitacre (author of Aspen) herded several cats into a room on Sunday and forced us to discuss the various issues surrounding Python web application deployment. This is hinted at in the WSGI spec:

Finally, it should be mentioned that the current version of WSGI does not prescribe any particular mechanism for "deploying" an application for use with a web server or server gateway. At the present time, this is necessarily implementation-defined by the server or gateway. After a sufficient number of servers and frameworks have implemented WSGI to provide field experience with varying deployment requirements, it may make sense to create another PEP, describing a deployment standard for WSGI servers and application frameworks.

There were three basic realms where the participants agreed we could try to collaborate/standardize:

  1. Process control: stop, start, restart, daemonization, signal handling, socket re-use, drop privileges, etc. If you're familiar with CherryPy 3, you'll recognize this list as 95% of the current cherrypy.engine object. The CherryPy team has already been discussing ways of breaking up the Engine object; this may facilitate that (and vice-versa). Joseph Tate volunteered to look at socket re-use issues specifically, but the general consensus seemed to be that much of this would be hashed out on Web-SIG.

  2. WSGI stack composition: Jim Fulton proposed that we could all agree on Paste Deploy (at least a good portion of the API) to manage this in a cross-framework manner. Most heads nodded, "yes". Jim also proposed that each of the framework authors take the next week to refamiliarize themselves with Deploy, and then start pestering Ian Bicking with specific API issues. Ian suggested that he should fork Paste Deploy into another project specifically for this. For CherryPy, this would first mean offering standard egg entry points. [Personally, I'd like to standardize on a pure-Python API for deploy, not a config file format API. In other words, make the config file format optional, so that users of CP-only apps could avoid having to learn a distinct config file format for deployment. It should be possible to transform various config file formats into the same Python object(s).]

  3. Benchmarks: Jim also suggested we create a standard WSGI HTTP server benchmark suite, with various test applications and concurrency scenarios. This would compare various WSGI HTTP servers, as opposed to CherryPy's existing benchmark suite which compares successive versions of the full CP stack. Ian volunteered to begin work on that project (with the expectation that others would contribute substantial use cases, etc).

Others who were present for at least a portion of the long discussion: me, Mark Ramm, Kevin Dangoor, Ben Bangert, Jonathan Ellis, Matt Good, Brian Beck, and Calvin Hendryx-Parker.

WSGI middleware authoring

After some discussion with Mark (and he with Ian and Ben), we agreed that CherryPy could do more in the WSGI-middleware-authoring department. There is a continuous pressure to simply re-use or fix up the existing CherryPy request object to fill this need; however, there are some fundamental problems with that approach (such as the use of threadlocals to manage context, and the difficulty of streaming WSGI output through a CherryPy app). At the moment, I'm leaning toward adding a new API to CherryPy which would be similar to the application API, but specifically targeted at middleware authoring.


Permalink 04:25:45 pm, by fumanchu Email , 49 words   English (US)
Categories: IT

Feedburner is ruining feeds for us all

What should have been 7 HTTP requests is now 81, and what's worse is that all of the feedburner responses are 200's. This is no way to run an Internet. At the least, feedburner, please do the fancy webhit dance for only 1 of the 3 gifs for each entry in the feed.

HTTP session


Permalink 04:33:26 pm, by fumanchu Email , 86 words   English (US)
Categories: IT

Spam innards

I got an uncompleted bit of spam in my inbox today. Here's the end of the headers for fun:

Received: from 192.168.0.%RND_DIGIT (203-219-%DIGSTAT2-%STATDIG.%RND_FROM_DOMAIN [203.219.%DIGSTAT2.%STATDIG]) by mail%SINGSTAT.%RND_FROM_DOMAIN (envelope-from %FROM_EMAIL) (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id %STATWORD for <%TO_EMAIL>; %CURRENT_DATE_TIME
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:08:41 -0800
X-pstn-levels:     (S: 1.07668/99.82653 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 )
X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) s gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c 
X-pstn-addresses: from <> [81/4] 
Return-Path: <a href=""></a>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2007 23:02:12.0495 (UTC) FILETIME=[8464F9F0:01C73F42]

Fascinating stuff.

Permalink 12:05:53 pm, by fumanchu Email , 433 words   English (US)
Categories: Python, Dejavu

Mapping Python types to DB types

Reading Barry Warsaw's recent use of SQLAlchemy, I'm reminded once again of how ugly I find SQLAlchemy's PickleType and SQLObject's PickleCol concepts. I have nothing against the concept of pickle itself, mind you, but I do have an issue with implementation layer names leaking into application code.

The existence of a PickleType (and BlobType, etc.) means that the application developer needs to think in terms of database types. This adds another mental model to the user's (my) tiny brain, one which is unnecessary. It constantly places the burden on the developer to map Python types to database types.

For Dejavu, I started in the opposite direction, and decided that object properties would be declared in terms of Python types, not database types. When you write a new Unit class, you even pass the actual type (such as int or unicode) to the property constructor instead of a type name! Instead of separate classes for each type, there is only a single UnitProperty class. This frees programmers from having to map types in their code (and therefore in their heads); it removes an entire mental model (DB types) at coding time, and allows the programmer to remain in the Python flow.

However, the first versions of Dejavu went too far in this approach, mostly due to the fact that Dejavu started from the "no legacy" side of ORM development; that is, it assumed your Python model would always create the database. This allowed Dejavu to choose appropriate database types for the declared Python types, but meant that existing applications (with existing data) were difficult to port to Dejavu, because the type-adaptation machinery had no way to recognize and handle database types other than those Dejavu preferred to create.

Dejavu 1.5 (soon to be released) corrects this by allowing true "M x N" type adaptation. What this means is that you can continue to directly use Python types in your model, but you also gain complete control over the database types. The built-in type adapters understand many more (Python type <-> DB type) adaptation pairs, now, but you also have the power to add your own. In addition, Dejavu now has DB type-introspection capabilities—the database types will be discovered for you, and appropriate adapters used on the fly. [...and Dejavu now allows you to automatically create Python models from existing databases.]

In short, it is possible to have an ORM with abstractions that don't leak (at least not on a regular basis—the construction of a custom adapter requires some thought ;) ).


Permalink 02:46:25 am, by fumanchu Email , 1378 words   English (US)
Categories: CherryPy

help(CherryPy 3.0)


  1. CherryPy just grew its first metaclass.
  2. CherryPy just grew its first stdlib monkeypatch.
  3. Because of 1 and 2, CherryPy is now a heck of a lot easier to learn and use.
  4. Points 1, 2, and 3 all apply to unreleased trunk code and are subject to change.


I've been a proper fool (and might still be). I've been telling everyone that CherryPy 3 is much easier to learn and use because it's been tailored to be help()-ful. What I meant was that you could open an interactive interpreter, type help(cherrypy.<thing>) and have at least some idea of what it does. I spent quite a bit of time honing the top-level namespace down to as few components as possible (and some of the component namespaces, too) in order to make help() easier to read.

This is harder to do than you might think. Unlike simple linear scripts or libraries, the most important objects when CherryPy is "live" don't exist at an interactive prompt. The Request, Response, and Session objects are all heavily dependent on the context of a real HTTP conversation. They're hard to create in a vacuum. And although there's one of each per thread while the system is running, they are implemented as thread local objects so that the CherryPy programmer can treat each of them as if there were only one: a global.

Reusing thread locals

Thread locals are a great invention, but they suffer from one serious drawback when used in a threaded framework: they allow anyone to add attributes to them. If the framework re-uses the same thread for multiple requests, it becomes difficult to reliably clean out all of those attributes between requests.

CherryPy's solution to that was to add a container in 2.1; instead of a separate thread local for the Request, Response, and Session objects, there is a single, hidden thread local called cherrypy._serving, and the Request, Response, and Session objects for each thread are attributes of the "serving" object. This makes it easy for cleanup code: it just calls cherrypy._serving.__dict__.clear() when the request ends. (Aside: this technique also allows the Request, Response and Session types to be overridden).

However, pushing those objects into a container means they're no longer so easy to reference. CherryPy code would become uglier and more difficult if, instead of:

cherrypy.request.method had to write:


So a _ThreadLocalProxy class was introduced to allow CherryPy code to keep writing the nicer, shorter syntax. In short, it passes __getattr__ (and other double-underscore methods) through to a wrapped object. So cherrypy.request became a proxy object to a wrapped Request object. Ditto for response and session.

That was fine for CherryPy 2, but one of the goals for version 3.0 is better IDE support. Most IDE's at least provide calltips for code completion, but there aren't usually any HTTP requests coming in as you're writing code! CP 2's thread local proxies didn't have a request object in the main thread (or any thread that wasn't started by the HTTP server), so typing cherrypy.request. couldn't result in a calltip as you coded. The solution for CherryPy 3 was to have the proxy's __getattr__ and friends wrap a default object if a live object could not be found. And the default objects' attributes are true defaults; if they're not overridden (in config or code), they won't change when the system goes live. This makes interactive exploration even easier; you can forget all about the threading and pretend you're looking at live, global objects.

help(proxy) isn't helpful

But there's another catch: one of the few problems with using a proxy object in pure Python is that it's no longer of the same type as the wrapped object. Unfortunately for us, Python's builtin help function uses pydoc, and pydoc calls type(obj) quite a bit.

You can certainly call help( and get the correct docstring, because "run" is an attribute of cherrypy.request, the proxy calls __getattr__ first, and then type() is called on the attribute, not the request object/proxy. But if you attempt help(cherrypy.request), you're in for some confusion, because the proxy implementation leaks out.

Or rather, it did leak out until just now. I took the plunge and CherryPy now monkeypatches pydoc, so that it "passes the help() call through the proxy". Monkeypatching the standard library is of course a huge no-no, but the alternative was to essentially copy and paste most of pydoc and distribute the result with CherryPy. Now, help(cherrypy.response) at least prints:

>>> help(cherrypy.response)
Help on Response in module cherrypy._cprequest object:

class Response(__builtin__.object)
 |  An HTTP Response, including status, headers, and body.
 |  Application developers should use Response.headers (a dict) to
 |  set or modify HTTP response headers. When the response is finalized,
 |  Response.headers is transformed into Response.header_list as
 |  (key, value) tuples.
 |  Methods defined here:
 |  __init__(self)
 |  check_timeout(self)
 |      If now > self.time + self.timeout, set self.timed_out.
 |      This purposefully sets a flag, rather than raising an error,
 |      so that a monitor thread can interrupt the Response thread.
 |  collapse_body(self)
 |  finalize(self)
 |      Transform headers (and cookies) into self.header_list.
 |  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 |  Data and other attributes defined here:
 |  __dict__ = <dictproxy object>
 |      dictionary for instance variables (if defined)
 |  __weakref__ = <attribute '__weakref__' of 'Response' objects>
 |      list of weak references to the object (if defined)
 |  body = <cherrypy._cprequest.Body object>
 |      The body of the HTTP response (the response entity).
 |  cookie = <SimpleCookie: >
 |  header_list = []
 |  headers = {}
 |  status = ''
 |  stream = False
 |  time = None
 |  timed_out = False
 |  timeout = 300

Documenting data

But there's a further flaw with the above output of help(); none of the data members of the Response class are documented! A few of them are mentioned in the class docstring, to be sure, but hardly to a truly useful extent. The Request object is an even poorer state, since it has so many more data members.

The solution for that issue is somewhat complicated, as well. It turns out that there are plenty of good documentation generators for Python code (that emit HTML or text; epydoc and pudge spring to mind), but no serious helpers for making help() more informative. This is a real shame; I would almost always rather have help() be truly helpful than go read a book or search online docs.

So I proposed a (small!) metaclass to help alleviate the problem for CherryPy. When you look at CherryPy source code, now, you might see something like this:

class Request(object):
    """An HTTP request."""

    __metaclass__ = cherrypy._AttributeDocstrings

    prev = None
    prev__doc = """
    The previous Request object (if any). This should be None
    unless we are processing an InternalRedirect."""

    # Conversation/connection attributes
    local = http.Host("localhost", 80)
    local__doc = \
        "An http.Host(ip, port, hostname) object for the server socket."

    remote = http.Host("localhost", 1111)
    remote__doc = \
        "An http.Host(ip, port, hostname) object for the client socket."

The _AttributeDocstrings metaclass does one thing: finds class members whose names look like <attrname>__doc, takes their str value, formats it, and folds it into the class docstring. Here's a snippet of the resulting help() output:

Help on Request in module cherrypy._cprequest object:

class Request(__builtin__.object)
 |  An HTTP request.
 |  local [= http.Host('localhost', 80, 'localhost')]:
 |      An http.Host(ip, port, hostname) object for the server socket.
 |  prev [= None]:
 |      The previous Request object (if any). This should be None
 |      unless we are processing an InternalRedirect.
 |  remote [= http.Host('localhost', 1111, 'localhost')]:
 |      An http.Host(ip, port, hostname) object for the client socket.

Christian's first question was, "why not just write it yourself by hand in the docstring?" Here's the long answer. The metaclass:

  1. Places the docstring nearer to the attribute declaration.
  2. Makes attribute docs more uniform ("name (default): doc").
  3. Automatically gets the attribute name right in the docstring.
  4. Automatically gets the default value right in the docstring.

I chose the naming convention because it allows the attribute name and the attribute__doc name to line up horizontally (it doesn't matter which comes first; I prefer to put the doc after the attribute). It also looks similar to the conventions in Python's C code, where doc variable names look like module_attribute__doc__ or sometimes just attribute_doc.

Code faster

Hopefully these two improvements, although more awkward than I like implementation-wise, will make using CherryPy much easier and faster. Feel free to help() us out by writing a few data member docstrings!


Permalink 05:12:12 pm, by fumanchu Email , 53 words   English (US)
Categories: Python

Selenium RC fixed for FF

The bug report is here. And, as stated in the original forum thread, you can get a nightly release from . Just replace your existing selenium-server.jar with the new one.

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 26 >>

March 2017
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  


The requested Blog doesn't exist any more!

XML Feeds

open source blog software