Best practise implementation for equal by value objects

Discussion in 'Python' started by Slaunger, Aug 6, 2008.

  1. Slaunger

    Slaunger Guest

    Hi,

    I am new here and relatively new to Python, so be gentle:

    Is there a recommended generic implementation of __repr__ for objects
    equal by value to assure that eval(repr(x)) == x independet of which
    module the call is made from?

    Example:

    class Age:

    def __init__(self, an_age):
    self.age = an_age

    def __eq__(self, obj):
    self.age == obj.age

    def __repr__(self):
    return self.__class__.__name__ + \
    "(%r)" % self.age

    age_ten = Age(10)
    print repr(age_ten)
    print eval(repr(age_ten))
    print eval(repr(age_ten)).age

    Running this gives

    Age(10)
    Age(10)
    10

    Exactly as I want to.

    The problem arises when the Age class is iomported into another module
    in another package as then there is a package prefix and the above
    implementation of __repr__ does not work.

    I have then experimented with doing somthing like

    def __repr__(self):
    return self.__module__ + '.' + self.__class__.__name__ +
    "(%r)" % self.age

    This seems to work when called from the outside, but not from the
    inside of the module. That is, if I rerun the script above the the
    module name prefixed to the representation I get the following error

    Traceback (most recent call last):
    File "valuetest.py", line 15, in <module>
    print eval(repr(age_ten))
    __main__.Age(10)
    File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
    NameError: name '__main__' is not defined

    This is pretty annoying.

    My question is: Is there a robust generic type of implementation of
    __repr__ which I can use instead?

    This is something I plan to reuse for many different Value classes, so
    I would like to get it robust.

    Thanks,
    Slaunger
     
    Slaunger, Aug 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Slaunger

    Terry Reedy Guest

    Slaunger wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am new here and relatively new to Python, so be gentle:
    >
    > Is there a recommended generic implementation of __repr__ for objects
    > equal by value to assure that eval(repr(x)) == x independet of which
    > module the call is made from?


    The CPython implementation gives up on that goal and simply prints
    <modname.classname object at address> for at least two reasons ;-).

    1. In general, it require fairly sophisticated analysis of __init__ to
    decide what representation of what attributes to include and decide if
    the goal is even possible. If an attribute is an instance of a user
    class, then *its* __init__ needs to be analyzed. If an attribute is a
    module, class, or function, there is no generic evaluable representation.

    2. Whether eval(repr(x)) even works (returns an answer) depends on
    whether the name bindings in the globals and locals passed to eval
    (which by default are the globals and locals of the context of the eval
    call) match the names used in the repr. You discovered that to a first
    approximation, this depends on whether the call to repr comes from
    within or without the module containing the class definition. But the
    situation is far worse. Consider 'import somemod as m'. Even if you
    were able to introspect the call and determine that it did not come from
    somemod**, prepending 'somemod.' to the repr *still* would not work.
    Or, the call to repr could come from one context, the result saved and
    passed to another context with different name bindings, and the eval
    call made there. So an repr that can be eval'ed in any context is hopeless.

    If this is a practical rather than theoretical question, then use your
    first repr version that uses the classes definition name and only eval
    the result in a context that has that name bound to the class object.

    from mymod import Age
    #or
    import mymod
    Age = mymod.Age

    #in either case
    eval(repr(Age(10))) == Age(10)

    > class Age:
    >
    > def __init__(self, an_age):
    > self.age = an_age
    >
    > def __eq__(self, obj):
    > self.age == obj.age
    >
    > def __repr__(self):
    > return self.__class__.__name__ + \
    > "(%r)" % self.age

    **
    While such introspection is not part of the language, I believe one
    could do it in CPython, but I forgot the details. There have been
    threads like 'How do I determine the caller function' with answers to
    that question, and I presume the module of the caller is available also.

    Terry Jan Reedy
     
    Terry Reedy, Aug 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Slaunger

    John Krukoff Guest

    On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 05:50 -0700, Slaunger wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am new here and relatively new to Python, so be gentle:
    >
    > Is there a recommended generic implementation of __repr__ for objects
    > equal by value to assure that eval(repr(x)) == x independet of which
    > module the call is made from?
    >
    > Example:
    >
    > class Age:
    >
    > def __init__(self, an_age):
    > self.age = an_age
    >
    > def __eq__(self, obj):
    > self.age == obj.age
    >
    > def __repr__(self):
    > return self.__class__.__name__ + \
    > "(%r)" % self.age
    >
    > age_ten = Age(10)
    > print repr(age_ten)
    > print eval(repr(age_ten))
    > print eval(repr(age_ten)).age
    >
    > Running this gives
    >
    > Age(10)
    > Age(10)
    > 10
    >
    > Exactly as I want to.
    >
    > The problem arises when the Age class is iomported into another module
    > in another package as then there is a package prefix and the above
    > implementation of __repr__ does not work.
    >
    > I have then experimented with doing somthing like
    >
    > def __repr__(self):
    > return self.__module__ + '.' + self.__class__.__name__ +
    > "(%r)" % self.age
    >
    > This seems to work when called from the outside, but not from the
    > inside of the module. That is, if I rerun the script above the the
    > module name prefixed to the representation I get the following error
    >
    > Traceback (most recent call last):
    > File "valuetest.py", line 15, in <module>
    > print eval(repr(age_ten))
    > __main__.Age(10)
    > File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
    > NameError: name '__main__' is not defined
    >
    > This is pretty annoying.
    >
    > My question is: Is there a robust generic type of implementation of
    > __repr__ which I can use instead?
    >
    > This is something I plan to reuse for many different Value classes, so
    > I would like to get it robust.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Slaunger
    > --
    > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


    Are you really sure this is what you want to do, and that a less tricky
    serialization format such as that provided by the pickle module wouldn't
    work for you?

    --
    John Krukoff <>
    Land Title Guarantee Company
     
    John Krukoff, Aug 6, 2008
    #3
  4. On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:50:35 -0700, Slaunger wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am new here and relatively new to Python, so be gentle:
    >
    > Is there a recommended generic implementation of __repr__ for objects
    > equal by value to assure that eval(repr(x)) == x independet of which
    > module the call is made from?


    In general, no.

    ....
    > My question is: Is there a robust generic type of implementation of
    > __repr__ which I can use instead?
    >
    > This is something I plan to reuse for many different Value classes, so I
    > would like to get it robust.


    I doubt you could get it that robust, nor is it intended to be.

    eval(repr(obj)) giving obj is meant as a guideline, not an invariant --
    there are many things that can break it. For example, here's a module
    with a simple class:


    # Parrot module
    class Parrot(object):
    def __repr__(self):
    return "parrot.Parrot()"
    def __eq__(self, other):
    # all parrots are equal
    return isinstance(other, Parrot)


    Now let's use it:

    >>> import parrot
    >>> p = parrot.Parrot()
    >>> s = repr(p)
    >>> assert eval(s) == p
    >>> del parrot
    >>> assert eval(s) == p

    Traceback (most recent call last):
    File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
    NameError: name 'parrot' is not defined


    If you look at classes in the standard library, they often have reprs
    like this:

    >>> repr(timeit.Timer())

    '<timeit.Timer instance at 0xb7f14bcc>'

    Certainly you can't expect to successfully eval that!

    I believe the recommendation for eval(repr(obj)) to give obj again is
    meant as a convenience for the interactive interpreter, and even there
    only for simple types like int or list. If you can do it, great, but if
    it doesn't work, so be it. You're not supposed to rely on it, and it's
    not meant as a general way to serialize classes.


    --
    Steven
     
    Steven D'Aprano, Aug 7, 2008
    #4
  5. Slaunger

    Slaunger Guest

    On 6 Aug., 21:36, Terry Reedy <> wrote:
    > Slaunger wrote:
    > > Hi,

    >
    > > I am new here and relatively new to Python, so be gentle:

    >
    > > Is there a recommended generic implementation of __repr__ for objects
    > > equal by value to assure that eval(repr(x)) == x independet of which
    > > module the call is made from?

    >
    > The CPython implementation gives up on that goal and simply prints
    > <modname.classname object at address> for at least two reasons ;-).
    >
    > 1. In general, it require fairly sophisticated analysis of __init__ to
    > decide what representation of what attributes to include and decide if
    > the goal is even possible.  If an attribute is an instance of a user
    > class, then *its* __init__ needs to be analyzed.  If an attribute is a
    > module, class, or function, there is no generic evaluable representation.


    OK, the situation is more complicated than that then. In the case here
    though,
    the attributes would always be sinmple bulit-in types, where
    eval(repr(x))==x
    or, where the attribute is a user-defined equal-by-value class, that I
    have
    control over.

    The classes I am making as struct type classes with some added
    functionlity for
    human readable string representation, packing into a stream or
    unpacking from a stream
    using a "private" class Struct.

    I come from a Java and JUnit world, where, if I am used to always
    overriding the default reference based implementations of the
    equals(), toString(),
    and hashCode() methods for "equals-by-value" objects such that they
    work well
    and efficient in, e.g., hash maps.

    With my swich-over to Python, I looked for equivalent features and
    stumbled over the
    eval(repr(x))==x recommendation. It is not that I actually (yet) need
    the repr implementations,
    but mostly because I find the condition very useful in PyUnit to check
    in a test that I have remembered
    to initialize all instance fields in __init__ and that I have
    remembered to include all relevant
    attributes in the __eq__ implementation.

    Whereas this worked fine in a unit test module dedicated to only test
    the specific module, the test failed
    when called from other test package modules, wrapping the unit tests
    from several unit test modules.

    >
    > 2. Whether eval(repr(x)) even works (returns an answer) depends on
    > whether the name bindings in the globals and locals passed to eval
    > (which by default are the globals and locals of the context of the eval
    > call) match the names used in the repr.  You discovered that to a first
    > approximation, this depends on whether the call to repr comes from
    > within or without the module containing the class definition.  But the
    > situation is far worse.  Consider 'import somemod as m'.  Even if you
    > were able to introspect the call and determine that it did not come from
    > somemod**, prepending 'somemod.' to the repr *still* would not work.
    > Or, the call to repr could come from one context, the result saved and
    > passed to another context with different name bindings, and the eval
    > call made there.  So an repr that can be eval'ed in any context is hopeless.
    >

    Ok, nasty stuff

    > If this is a practical rather than theoretical question, then use your
    > first repr version that uses the classes definition name and only eval
    > the result in a context that has that name bound to the class object.
    >
    > from mymod import Age
    > #or
    > import mymod
    > Age = mymod.Age
    >
    > #in either case
    > eval(repr(Age(10))) == Age(10)
    >
    > > class Age:

    >
    > >     def __init__(self, an_age):
    > >         self.age = an_age

    >
    > >     def __eq__(self, obj):
    > >         self.age == obj.age

    >
    > >     def __repr__(self):
    > >         return self.__class__.__name__ + \
    > >                "(%r)" % self.age

    >

    Yes, it is most from a practicl point of view, altough I was surprised
    that I could not find more material on it in the Python documentation
    or mailing groups, and I moight just do what you suggest in the unit
    test modules to at least make it robust in that context.

    Hmm... a bit of a dissapointment for me that this cannot be done
    cleaner
    > **
    > While such introspection is not part of the language, I believe one
    > could do it in CPython, but I forgot the details.  There have been
    > threads like 'How do I determine the caller function' with answers to
    > that question, and I presume the module of the caller is available also.

    OK, I think CPython, for the moment, is too much new stuff to dig into
    right now.
    Just grasping some of all the possibilities in the API, and how to do
    things the right way
    is giving me enough challenges for now...

    >
    > Terry Jan Reedy


    Again, thank you for your thorough answer,

    Slaunger
     
    Slaunger, Aug 7, 2008
    #5
  6. Slaunger

    Slaunger Guest

    On 6 Aug., 21:46, John Krukoff <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 05:50 -0700, Slaunger wrote:
    > > Hi,

    >
    > > I am new here and relatively new to Python, so be gentle:

    >
    > > Is there a recommended generic implementation of __repr__ for objects
    > > equal by value to assure that eval(repr(x)) == x independet of which
    > > module the call is made from?

    >
    > > Example:

    >
    > > class Age:

    >
    > >     def __init__(self, an_age):
    > >         self.age = an_age

    >
    > >     def __eq__(self, obj):
    > >         self.age == obj.age

    >
    > >     def __repr__(self):
    > >         return self.__class__.__name__ + \
    > >                "(%r)" % self.age

    >
    > > age_ten = Age(10)
    > > print repr(age_ten)
    > > print eval(repr(age_ten))
    > > print eval(repr(age_ten)).age

    >
    > > Running this gives

    >
    > > Age(10)
    > > Age(10)
    > > 10

    >
    > > Exactly as I want to.

    >
    > > The problem arises when the Age class is iomported into another module
    > > in another package as then there is a package prefix and the above
    > > implementation of __repr__ does not work.

    >
    > > I have then experimented with doing somthing like

    >
    > >     def __repr__(self):
    > >         return self.__module__ + '.' + self.__class__.__name__ +
    > > "(%r)" % self.age

    >
    > > This seems to work when called from the outside, but not from the
    > > inside of the module. That is, if I rerun the script above the the
    > > module name prefixed to the representation I get the following error

    >
    > > Traceback (most recent call last):
    > >   File "valuetest.py", line 15, in <module>
    > >     print eval(repr(age_ten))
    > > __main__.Age(10)
    > >   File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
    > > NameError: name '__main__' is not defined

    >
    > > This is pretty annoying.

    >
    > > My question is: Is there a robust generic type of implementation of
    > > __repr__ which I can use instead?

    >
    > > This is something I plan to reuse for many different Value classes, so
    > > I would like to get it robust.

    >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Slaunger
    > > --
    > >http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

    >
    > Are you really sure this is what you want to do, and that a less tricky
    > serialization format such as that provided by the pickle module wouldn't
    > work for you?


    Well, it is not so much yet for serialization (although i have not yet
    fully understood the implications), it is more because
    I think the eval(repr(x))==x is a nice unit test to make sure my
    constructor and equals method is implemented correctly (that I have
    rememebered all attributes in their implementations).

    As mentioned above, I may go for a more pragmatic approach, where i
    only use repr if it "standard" imported

    Cheers,
    Slaunger

    >
    > --
    > John Krukoff <>
    > Land Title Guarantee Company- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
    >
    > - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
     
    Slaunger, Aug 7, 2008
    #6
  7. Slaunger

    Slaunger Guest

    On 7 Aug., 04:34, Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVE-THIS-
    cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    > On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:50:35 -0700, Slaunger wrote:
    > > Hi,

    >
    > > I am new here and relatively new to Python, so be gentle:

    >
    > > Is there a recommended generic implementation of __repr__ for objects
    > > equal by value to assure that eval(repr(x)) == x independet of which
    > > module the call is made from?

    >
    > In general, no.
    >
    > ...
    >

    OK.

    > > My question is: Is there a robust generic type of implementation of
    > > __repr__ which I can use instead?

    >
    > > This is something I plan to reuse for many different Value classes, so I
    > > would like to get it robust.

    >
    > I doubt you could get it that robust, nor is it intended to be.
    >
    > eval(repr(obj)) giving obj is meant as a guideline, not an invariant --
    > there are many things that can break it. For example, here's a module
    > with a simple class:


    OK, I had not fully understood the implications of 'not' implementing
    __repr__
    such that eval(repr(x)) == x, so I just tried to make it work to make
    sure
    life would be easy for me and my object as I went further into the
    Python jungle

    As mentioned above, i also find the eval(repr(x))==x condition
    convenient from
    a unit test point of view.

    >
    > # Parrot module
    > class Parrot(object):
    >     def __repr__(self):
    >         return "parrot.Parrot()"
    >     def __eq__(self, other):
    >         # all parrots are equal
    >         return isinstance(other, Parrot)
    >
    > Now let's use it:
    >
    > >>> import parrot
    > >>> p = parrot.Parrot()
    > >>> s = repr(p)
    > >>> assert eval(s) == p
    > >>> del parrot
    > >>> assert eval(s) == p

    >
    > Traceback (most recent call last):
    >   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    >   File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
    > NameError: name 'parrot' is not defined
    >


    OK, I see, but this isn't exactly eval(repr(x))==x but
    s = repr(x)
    eval(s) == x

    so, of course, is s is deleted in between it won't work.

    In my implementation I only expect this should work as a one-liner.

    > If you look at classes in the standard library, they often have reprs
    > like this:
    >
    > >>> repr(timeit.Timer())

    >
    > '<timeit.Timer instance at 0xb7f14bcc>'
    >


    Yes, I noticed that. But the example here is also an object, which is
    equal by reference, not value. And for these
    it does not make so much sense to evaluate the representation.

    > Certainly you can't expect to successfully eval that!
    >
    > I believe the recommendation for eval(repr(obj)) to give obj again is
    > meant as a convenience for the interactive interpreter, and even there
    > only for simple types like int or list. If you can do it, great, but if
    > it doesn't work, so be it. You're not supposed to rely on it, and it's
    > not meant as a general way to serialize classes.
    >
    > --
    > Steven


    OK, I will put less emphasis on it in the future.

    Thank you for taking your time to answer.

    Slaunger
     
    Slaunger, Aug 7, 2008
    #7
  8. Slaunger

    Terry Reedy Guest

    Slaunger wrote:
    > On 6 Aug., 21:36, Terry Reedy <> wrote:


    > OK, the situation is more complicated than that then. In the case here
    > though,
    > the attributes would always be sinmple bulit-in types, where
    > eval(repr(x))==x
    > or, where the attribute is a user-defined equal-by-value class, that I
    > have
    > control over.


    I think most would agree that a more accurate and informative
    representation is better than a general representation like Pythons
    default. For instance,
    >>> a=range(2,10,2) # 3.0
    >>> a

    range(2, 10, 2)

    is nicer than <class 'range' object at ######>.

    So when the initializers for instances are all 'nice' (as for range), go
    for it (as in 'Age(10)'). And test it as you are by eval'ing the rep.
    Just accept that the eval will only work in contexts with the class name
    bound to the class. For built-in like range, it always is, by default
    -- unless masked by another assignment!

    Terry Jan Reedy
     
    Terry Reedy, Aug 7, 2008
    #8
  9. Slaunger

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Terry Reedy <> writes:
    > So when the initializers for instances are all 'nice' (as for range),
    > go for it (as in 'Age(10)'). And test it as you are by eval'ing the
    > rep. Just accept that the eval will only work in contexts with the
    > class name bound to the class. For built-in like range, it always is,
    > by default -- unless masked by another assignment!


    Eval is extremely dangerous. Think of data from untrusted sources,
    then ask yourself how well you really know where ALL your data came
    from. It's preferable to avoid using it that way. There have been a
    few "safe eval" recipes posted here and at ASPN. It would be good if
    one of them made it into the standard library. Note that pickle
    (which would otherwise be an obious choice for this) has the same
    problems, though not as severely as flat-out evalling something.
     
    Paul Rubin, Aug 7, 2008
    #9
  10. Slaunger

    Slaunger Guest

    On 7 Aug., 21:25, Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    > Terry Reedy <> writes:
    > > So when the initializers for instances are all 'nice' (as for range),
    > > go for it (as in 'Age(10)').  And test it as you are by eval'ing the
    > > rep. Just accept that the eval will only work in contexts with the
    > > class name bound to the class.  For built-in like range, it always is,
    > > by default -- unless masked by another assignment!

    >
    > Eval is extremely dangerous.  Think of data from untrusted sources,
    > then ask yourself how well you really know where ALL your data came
    > from.  It's preferable to avoid using it that way.  There have been a
    > few "safe eval" recipes posted here and at ASPN.  It would be good if
    > one of them made it into the standard library.  Note that pickle
    > (which would otherwise be an obious choice for this) has the same
    > problems, though not as severely as flat-out evalling something.


    Thank you for pointing out the dangers of eval. I think you are right
    to
    caution about it. In my particular case it is a closed-loop system, so
    no
    danger there, but that certainly could have been an issue.

    That caution should perhaps be mentioned in
    http://docs.python.org/lib/built-in-funcs.html
     
    Slaunger, Aug 8, 2008
    #10
  11. Slaunger

    Slaunger Guest

    On 7 Aug., 21:19, Terry Reedy <> wrote:
    > Slaunger wrote:
    > > On 6 Aug., 21:36, Terry Reedy <> wrote:
    > > OK, the situation is more complicated than that then. In the case here
    > > though,
    > > the attributes would always be sinmple bulit-in types, where
    > > eval(repr(x))==x
    > > or, where the attribute is a user-defined equal-by-value class, that I
    > > have
    > > control over.

    >
    > I think most would agree that a more accurate and informative
    > representation is better than a general representation like Pythons
    > default.  For instance,
    >  >>> a=range(2,10,2) # 3.0
    >  >>> a
    > range(2, 10, 2)
    >
    > is nicer than <class 'range' object at ######>.
    >
    > So when the initializers for instances are all 'nice' (as for range), go
    > for it (as in 'Age(10)').  And test it as you are by eval'ing the rep.
    > Just accept that the eval will only work in contexts with the class name
    >   bound to the class.  For built-in like range, it always is, by default
    > -- unless masked by another assignment!
    >

    OK, i am encouraged to carry on my quest with the eval(repr)) for my
    'nice' classes.
    I just revisited the documentation for eval and noticed that there are
    optional globals
    and locals name space variables, that one could specify:

    http://docs.python.org/lib/built-in-funcs.html

    Quite frankly I do not understand how to make use of these parameters,
    but it is my feeling
    that if I enforce a convention of always specifying the globals/locals
    parameter in a specific
    manner:
    assert eval(repr(x), globals, locals) == x
    would work independent of how I have imported the module under test.

    Now, I just need to figure out if this is right and how to specify the
    globals and locals if that is not too cumbersome...
    or maybe I am just over-engineering...
     
    Slaunger, Aug 8, 2008
    #11
  12. On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:28:02 -0700, Slaunger wrote:

    > OK, i am encouraged to carry on my quest with the eval(repr)) for my
    > 'nice' classes.
    > I just revisited the documentation for eval and noticed that there are
    > optional globals
    > and locals name space variables, that one could specify:
    >
    > http://docs.python.org/lib/built-in-funcs.html
    >
    > Quite frankly I do not understand how to make use of these parameters,
    > but it is my feeling
    > that if I enforce a convention of always specifying the globals/locals
    > parameter in a specific
    > manner:
    > assert eval(repr(x), globals, locals) == x would work independent of how
    > I have imported the module under test.
    >
    > Now, I just need to figure out if this is right and how to specify the
    > globals and locals if that is not too cumbersome... or maybe I am just
    > over-engineering...



    I think it is infeasible for the repr() of an object to know where it was
    imported from. Including the globals and locals in the call to eval()
    won't help you, because they can have changed between the time you
    created the instance and the time you call repr(). Consider:


    >>> import datetime
    >>> x = datetime.time(20, 21, 22)
    >>> x

    datetime.time(20, 21, 22)
    >>> eval(repr(x)) == x

    True

    So far so good! But now watch this, starting in a fresh session:

    >>> import datetime as timedate
    >>> t = timedate.time
    >>> timedate.tttime = timedate.time
    >>> del timedate.time
    >>> assert t is timedate.tttime
    >>>
    >>> x1 = t(20, 21, 22)
    >>> x2 = timedate.tttime(20, 21, 22)
    >>> assert x1 == x2


    What should repr(x1) and repr(x2) be, for your invariant eval(repr(x))==x
    to hold?

    It gets better (or worse):

    >>> alist = [None, t, None]
    >>> del t, timedate
    >>> x3 = alist[1](20, 21, 22)
    >>> assert x1 == x2 == x3


    What should the repr() of x1, x2, x3 be now?


    Bringing this back to the unittests... as I see it, there's an easy way
    to solve your problem. In the unittest, just do something like the
    following:

    # repr(x) looks like "module.class(arg)",
    # but we actually import it as package.module.submodule.class
    module = package.module.submodule
    assert eval(repr(x)) == x

    I think that is all you need to do.


    --
    Steven
     
    Steven D'Aprano, Aug 8, 2008
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. exquisitus
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    485
    exquisitus
    Feb 20, 2005
  2. VisionSet
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    839
    VisionSet
    Aug 19, 2003
  3. Rich

    Architecture best practise

    Rich, Jun 30, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    515
    Nick Malik [Microsoft]
    Jul 11, 2006
  4. Mat

    Video file - best practise

    Mat, Aug 14, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    348
    =?Utf-8?B?Y2xpY2tvbg==?=
    Aug 14, 2006
  5. GW

    Best Practise

    GW, Nov 17, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    409
Loading...

Share This Page