ClientCookie bug (followup)

[John J. Lee]

pythonguy at Hotpop.com (Anand Pillai) writes:
[...]
>    'We', nothing royal about it. It is just me and my friend
> & co-developer Nirmal Chidambaram. Apparently he has found
> a way around some of the bugs in Clientcookie. He has written

It'd be great if you made me aware what those bugs are!

(BTW, no intent to offend with my comment about your plurality, or
lack thereof -- it's just that the convention of using 'we' in source
code comments is common enough that I've sometimes found myself using
it even when writing code alone, which is funny.)


> a new module using the existing Cookie module of python &
> urllib2. One of the problems 'we' had with Clientcookie is that
> it uses its own 'urlopen' methods which does not fit our
> applications needs, so 'we' had to find a way around it.

As I said before, if you know how to do that, please comment on the
RFE I referenced in my last post.  Jeremy Hylton is planning to look
at the patch associated with that RFE in detail sometime, and you
could save him some time if you know a way to do this without patching
urllib2.  And I'd like to know how to do it, too :-)


>    Once the code is ready, I will post it on my webpage, and
> of course it is not a module in itself, so I think an
> announcement to c.l.py is out of place.
[...]

Would you mind sending me an email?

Thanks


John