Re: Is there an obvious way to do this in python?
- From: Bruno Desthuilliers <onurb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:38:33 +0200
H J van Rooyen wrote:
(snip)
I would like to split this down further - see above - so for each user there is(snip)
a sort of *pointer* to each of the kinds of transactions she can do, and these
are shipped separately and *linked* at the client side...
Now part of the reason I would like to go the transaction type route instead of
the "per user" route is robustness and maintainability,
Nothing prevents you from managing rights with a user -> allowed
transactions mapping...
BTW, note that "transaction" has a very definite meaning in DBMS jargon,
which is somewhat different from what you use this term for. This may
become a source of confusion...
|NOTE: This means that the client will need to have all the required
|libraries at just the right versions. Imagine that your user decides to
|upgrade to Python 3000 because it sounds cooler than plain old Python
|2.4 ;) , but then they won't realize that it will break your code and
|they might not be able to run your application anymore. So you would
|have to know at least roughly how much control over the whole client
|machine you will have. Will they all be regular desktops that users
|will use day to day and then once in a while launch your application
|then close it, or will these all be dedicated terminals like an ATM?
|The two are very different. You can assume complete control of all the
|OS environment in a dedicated terminal but not in the case of a user
|desktop.
True - have not even considered this - this would, I imagine, vary from site to
site, and depend more on local IT policy - this is probably the strongest
argument to date against going this route, as these machines would not be as
tightly controlled as an ATM...
but then - If I want to use Python in the client at all, I would have to somehow
come to terms with this - its more the normal sort of version control that would
have to be done - after all if a user's machine is an XT running DOS - then its
going to have to be upgraded before it can be used as a terminal...
So this is more an argument against the use of Python on the client and I don't
like that...
Well, this is an argument against any kind of fat client whatever the
language, and one of the key reason for the growing demand for web
applications - reducing deployment problems to the minimum...
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'onurb@xxxxxxxxxxx'.split('@')])"
.
- References:
- Is there an obvious way to do this in python?
- From: H J van Rooyen
- Re: Is there an obvious way to do this in python?
- From: Bruno Desthuilliers
- Re: Is there an obvious way to do this in python?
- From: H J van Rooyen
- Re: Is there an obvious way to do this in python?
- From: Nick Vatamaniuc
- Re: Is there an obvious way to do this in python?
- From: H J van Rooyen
- Is there an obvious way to do this in python?
- Prev by Date: [ANNOUNCE] Thirty-fourth release of PythonCAD now available
- Next by Date: E' possibile integrare ironpython con visual studio 2005?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is there an obvious way to do this in python?
- Next by thread: Re: Is there an obvious way to do this in python?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
