On 01/19/09 15:24, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Good point. Unfortunately, the current implementation doesn't lend
itself to that. While each tool (admin mass subscribe,
bin/add_members and bin/sync_members) that does bulk adds currently
uses a common function to parse the input into name and address, that
function is part of the Python email library and would have to be
replaced by some other, possibly Mailman specific, function to handle
the password. Further, the parsing and resultant passing of the
parsed values is done in the tool, not in the underlying method which
adds the member, so each tool would have to be modified individually
anyway.
Ok... It is my (mis)understanding that this is one of the nice thingsGood point. Unfortunately, the current implementation doesn't lend
itself to that. While each tool (admin mass subscribe,
bin/add_members and bin/sync_members) that does bulk adds currently
uses a common function to parse the input into name and address, that
function is part of the Python email library and would have to be
replaced by some other, possibly Mailman specific, function to handle
the password. Further, the parsing and resultant passing of the
parsed values is done in the tool, not in the underlying method which
adds the member, so each tool would have to be modified individually
anyway.
about Object Oriented programming languages like Python in such as it is
possible to have a new class inherit a parent's class and then extend
it. I would think that this type of things would lend its self to this,
maybe not. If it did, you would just start referencing the new extended
class object rather than the one built in to Python. But seeing what I
think of OO, and to some extent Python, I may be speaking out my <BEEP>.
Of course, it this were to be done, there should be a common syntax
for optionally adding the password information.
*nod*for optionally adding the password information.
So the question becomes, is it worth the effort to provide future
functionality, something that I can't answer.
Grant. . . .
