By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
443,983 Members | 1,597 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 443,983 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

ElementTree should parse string and file in teh same way

P: n/a
One bad design about elementtree is that it has different ways parsing a
string and a file, even worse they return different objects:
1) When you parse a file, you can simply call parse, which returns a
elementtree, on which you can then apply xpath;
2) To parse a string (xml section), you can call XML or fromstring, but both
return element instead of elementtree. This alone is bad. To make it worse,
you have to create an elementtree from this element before you can utilize
xpath.
Dec 31 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies


P: n/a
On Dec 31, 3:42 am, "Peter Pei" <yan...@telus.comwrote:
One bad design about elementtree is that it has different ways parsing a
string and a file, even worse they return different objects:
1) When you parse a file, you can simply call parse, which returns a
elementtree, on which you can then apply xpath;
2) To parse a string (xml section), you can call XML or fromstring, but both
return element instead of elementtree. This alone is bad. To make it worse,
you have to create an elementtree from this element before you can utilize
xpath.
I haven't tried this, but you should be able to wrap your text string
so that it looks like a file using the stringio module and pass that
to elementtree:

http://blog.doughellmann.com/2007/04...cstringio.html

- Paddy.
Dec 31 '07 #2

P: n/a
Peter Pei wrote:
One bad design about elementtree is that it has different ways parsing a
string and a file, even worse they return different objects:
1) When you parse a file, you can simply call parse, which returns a
elementtree, on which you can then apply xpath;
ElementTree doesn't support XPath. In case you mean the simpler ElementPath
language that is supported by the find*() methods, I do not see a reason why
you can't use it on elements.

2) To parse a string (xml section), you can call XML or fromstring, but
both return element instead of elementtree. This alone is bad. To make
it worse, you have to create an elementtree from this element before you
can utilize xpath.
a) how hard is it to write a wrapper function around fromstring() that wraps
the result Element in an ElementTree object and returns it?

b) the same as above applies: I can't see the problem you are talking about.

Stefan
Dec 31 '07 #3

P: n/a
You are talking shit. It is never about whether it is hard to write a
wrapper. It is about bad design. I should be able to parse a string and a
file in exactly same way, and that should be provided as part of the
package.

Looks like you are just a code monkey not a designer, so I forgive you. You
didn't understand the issue I described? That's your issue. You are not at
the same level to talk to me, so chill.
================================================== =================
"Stefan Behnel" <st******************@web.dewrote in message
news:47**************@web.de...
Peter Pei wrote:
>One bad design about elementtree is that it has different ways parsing a
string and a file, even worse they return different objects:
1) When you parse a file, you can simply call parse, which returns a
elementtree, on which you can then apply xpath;

ElementTree doesn't support XPath. In case you mean the simpler
ElementPath
language that is supported by the find*() methods, I do not see a reason
why
you can't use it on elements.

>2) To parse a string (xml section), you can call XML or fromstring, but
both return element instead of elementtree. This alone is bad. To make
it worse, you have to create an elementtree from this element before you
can utilize xpath.

a) how hard is it to write a wrapper function around fromstring() that
wraps
the result Element in an ElementTree object and returns it?

b) the same as above applies: I can't see the problem you are talking
about.

Stefan
Jan 1 '08 #4

P: n/a
To be preise, XPath is not fully supported. Don't be a smart asshole.
================================================== ===================
"Stefan Behnel" <st******************@web.dewrote in message
news:47**************@web.de...
Peter Pei wrote:
>One bad design about elementtree is that it has different ways parsing a
string and a file, even worse they return different objects:
1) When you parse a file, you can simply call parse, which returns a
elementtree, on which you can then apply xpath;

ElementTree doesn't support XPath. In case you mean the simpler
ElementPath
language that is supported by the find*() methods, I do not see a reason
why
you can't use it on elements.

>2) To parse a string (xml section), you can call XML or fromstring, but
both return element instead of elementtree. This alone is bad. To make
it worse, you have to create an elementtree from this element before you
can utilize xpath.

a) how hard is it to write a wrapper function around fromstring() that
wraps
the result Element in an ElementTree object and returns it?

b) the same as above applies: I can't see the problem you are talking
about.

Stefan
Jan 1 '08 #5

P: n/a
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:53:47 +0000, Peter Pei wrote:
You are talking shit. It is never about whether it is hard to write a
wrapper. It is about bad design. I should be able to parse a string and
a file in exactly same way, and that should be provided as part of the
package.
Oh my, somebody decided to start the new year with all guns blazing.

Before abusing anyone else, have you considered asking *why* ElementTree
does not treat files and strings the same way? I believe the writer of
ElementTree, Fredrik Lundh, frequents this newsgroup.

It may be that Fredrik doesn't agree with you that you should be able to
parse a string and a file the same way, in which case there's nothing you
can do but work around it. On the other hand, perhaps he just hasn't had
a chance to implement that functionality, and would welcome a patch.

Fredrik, if you're reading this, I'm curious what your reason is. I don't
have an opinion on whether you should or shouldn't treat files and
strings the same way. Over to you...

--
Steven
Jan 1 '08 #6

P: n/a
Peter Pei wrote:
To be preise
[...]

Preise the lord, not me. :)

Happy New Year!

Stefan
Jan 1 '08 #7

P: n/a
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:36:57 +0100, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
And codemonkeys know that in python

doc = et.parse(StringIO(string))

is just one import away
Yes, but to play devil's advocate for a moment,

doc = et.parse(string_or_file)

would be even simpler.

Is there any reason why it should not behave that way? It could be as
simple as adding a couple of lines to the parse method:

if isinstance(arg, str):
import StringIO
arg = StringIO(arg)

I'm not saying it *should*, I'm asking if there's a reason it *shouldn't*.

"I find it aesthetically distasteful" would be a perfectly acceptable
answer -- not one I would agree with, but I could accept it.

--
Steven
Jan 1 '08 #8

P: n/a
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:36:57 +0100, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>And codemonkeys know that in python

doc = et.parse(StringIO(string))

is just one import away

Yes, but to play devil's advocate for a moment,

doc = et.parse(string_or_file)

would be even simpler.
I assume the problem with this is that it would be ambiguous. You can
already use either a string or a file with ``et.parse``. A string is
interpreted as a file name, while a file object is used directly.

How would you differentiate between a string that's supposed to be a
file name, and a string that's supposed to be XML?

Steve
Jan 1 '08 #9

P: n/a
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:59:44 -0700, Steven Bethard wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:36:57 +0100, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>>And codemonkeys know that in python

doc = et.parse(StringIO(string))

is just one import away

Yes, but to play devil's advocate for a moment,

doc = et.parse(string_or_file)

would be even simpler.

I assume the problem with this is that it would be ambiguous. You can
already use either a string or a file with ``et.parse``. A string is
interpreted as a file name, while a file object is used directly.
Ah! I wasn't aware that parse() operated on either an open file object or
a string file name. That's an excellent reason for not treating strings
the same as files in ElementTree.
How would you differentiate between a string that's supposed to be a
file name, and a string that's supposed to be XML?
Well, naturally I wouldn't.

I *could*, if I assumed that a multi-line string that started with "<"
was XML, and a single-line string with the path separator character or
ending in ".xml" was a file name, but that sort of Do What I Mean coding
is foolish in a library function that can't afford to occasionally Do The
Wrong Thing.
--
Steven
Jan 1 '08 #10

P: n/a
To answer something posted deep down... It is fine with me if there are two
functions - one to parse a file or file handler and one to parse a string,
yet the returned objects should be consistent.

Jan 2 '08 #11

P: n/a
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Fredrik, if you're reading this, I'm curious what your reason is. I don't
have an opinion on whether you should or shouldn't treat files and
strings the same way. Over to you...
as Diez shows, it's all about use cases.

and as anyone who's used my libraries or read my code knows, I'm a big
fan of minimalistic but highly composable object API:s and liberal use
of short helper functions to wire them up to fit the task at hand.

kitchen sink API design is a really bad idea, for more reasons than I
can fit in this small editor window.

</F>

Jan 2 '08 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.