How do you create a playlist using Python and Scripting Bridge?
So far I have :
from Foundation import *
from ScriptingBridge import *
iTunes = SBApplication.applicationWithBundleIdentifier_("com.apple.iTunes")
newPlaylist = iTunes.iTunesPlaylist()
This obviously doesn't work.
I've seen things for Ruby and Objective C, but I don't really understand the language.
This is actually an example in the Scripting Bridge documentation. See Listing 2, "Adding an object to a scriptable application in PyObjC code":
from Foundation import *
from ScriptingBridge import *
iTunes = SBApplication.applicationWithBundleIdentifier_("com.apple.iTunes")
p = {'name':'Testing'}
playlist = iTunes.classForScriptingClass_("playlist").alloc().initWithProperties_(p)
iTunes.sources()[0].playlists().insertObject_atIndex_(playlist, 0)
If this doesn't make sense to you, there are a few different ugly things to explain…
First, SBApplication doesn't have any member iTunesPlaylist that's a nice subclass of SBObject. If you've generated static glue, ITApplication might have such a thing… but you don't want to use static glue. So, you have to dynamically create the class object iTunesPlaylist. There are a few different ways to do that, but the easy way (assuming you know it's called playlist in Applescript) is with classForScriptingClass_.
Next, ScriptingBridge isn't really a native Python bridge to AE; it's a Python bridge to the ObjC bridge to AE. So that iTunesPlaylist is actually a wrapped-up ObjC class, not Python class. That means you can't just instantiate it as iTunesPlaylist(), you have to say iTunesPlaylist.alloc().init().
Calling initWithProperties_(p) is a nice shortcut to initializing and setting properties in separate steps.
Finally, the way the AE object model works, you can't just "create an object", you have create an object at some location. ScriptingBridge tries to hide this from you, but it doesn't do a very good job. The playlist object you create doesn't actually represent anything in iTunes yet—in fact, if you look at its type or repr, you'll see that it's a "future iTunesPlaylist". You need to find an appropriate SBElementArray to insert it into, and then it will become a real playlist.
Not everything in ScriptingBridge is this horrible. But some of it is even worse. Just wait until you run into one of the areas where iTunes' scripting dictionary is wrong…
The iTunes AE interface itself is very nice, if you can avoid using ScriptingBridge. There are three ways around that, although they may not help you.
First, there's appscript (docs here). This is a different Python->AE bridge which is much better than SB. Here's what the same thing looks like (relying on the default that iTunes has a default location for playlists—at the end of the list of playlists in the first library source):
from appscript import *
iTunes = app('iTunes')
p = {'name':'Testing'}
playlist = iTunes.make(new=k.playlist, with_properties=p)
And if you can't figure out how to do what you want, but can find AppleScript sample code (e.g., at dougscripts), you can use the ASTranslate tool to write the equivalent appscript.
Unfortunately, the author of appscript has canceled the project. And with good reason—it relies on legacy APIs that Apple could remove in 10.9 (or cite to reject you from the App Store). At present, it still works fine, and a few people are keeping it alive at the github repo above, but one day, it will have to die for real. So, it may not be a good solution unless this is a personal, short-term, or learning project. (Also, specific to iTunes: 10.6.3 has a bug that affects appscript, but doesn't affect other bridges unless you're using them remotely. If you need to work with that version, see itunesterms for one solution.)
Of course there's always the obvious option: do it in AppleScript:
tell application "iTunes"
make new playlist with properties {name:"Testing4"}
end tell
The problem with AppleScript is that it's a horrible language for everything except talking AEOM, and its equivalent of Python's standard library is about 5% as deep and wide. But you can always use a two-language solution, in two ways. You can connect from AppleScript to other Cocoa code (e.g., Python with PyObjC) via ASOC. Or, alternatively, you can use NSAppleScript and friends to run scripts from PyObjC/etc.
The latter may be the most painful answer, but it has one huge advantage: If you use the new APIs in Mountain Lion, and your use cases fall within a certain narrow band, you can write a sandboxed app that scripts iTunes without needing a temporary exception entitlement, meaning you can sell it in the App Store.
I realize there's a similar question here, but this one has a different approach: I have a django app that does queries over data indexed with djapian ; I'd like to write unit tests for this app's search component, and, obviously, I'd need the django settings module and all connections with the database active, so the test runner that django provides seems ideal. however, the django testing framework creates a dummy database and I'd hate to dump all my data to a fixture and then index it (the tests would take forever!);
My data isn't at risk because the tests would only read from the database, so, how could this be achieved? -I'm new at this whole unit testing thing, so the solution of writing a new test runner I read in that similar question doesn't enlighten me a bit, at least not without some details
Reading the test cases for djapian I found something really interesting: what those guys do is use the setUp method for the TestCase class: they create an object and then use the update method for the indexer, so they effectively have a document to search for and a way to write controlled query tests!
For the curious, the method looks something like this:
def setUp(self):
p = Person.objects.create(name="Alex")
for i in range(self.num_entries):
Entry.objects.create(author=p, title="Entry with number %s" % i, text="foobar " * i)
Entry.indexer.update()
I think this would do, but we have to remember I'm testing a little search engine here, so this solution might be the easy way out; I can't come up with an objection, though, so if you guys have an answer that'll help define a strategy for testing this kind of webApps in python in general, it's more than welcome!
-I think I'll settle for something like this for now (I wanted to test the latency of the queries with a fully populated database also, but I think I could do that later with bench tests in Funkload)
EDIT: Ok, to be faithful to a solution for anyone interested, I ran into another issue: the xapian index (as stated in the comment). To solve it, I created a default test runner that changed the production xapian index for a test index (a smaller one, created with a management script). This runner is fairly simple:
def custom_run_tests(test_labels, verbosity=1, interactive=True, extra_tests=[]):
"""Set the test indices"""
settings.CATEGORY_CLASSIFIER_DATA = settings.TEST_CLASSIFIER_DATA
return run_tests(test_labels, verbosity, interactive, extra_tests)
And, to use it, I simply added a setting:
TEST_RUNNER = 'search.tests.custom_run_tests'
I dropped the aforementioned approach (creating the documents in the setUp) for performance and readability reasons: to test the database I needed a decent amount of documents with some text (a paragraph or two), so I ended up creating a fixture for that (I used a management command that created the documents in the real database, serialized them -writing them to a file- and then deleted 'em).
So, in the end, I didn't read from the live db at all and instead used test fixtures created with a somewhat hacky script and a custom runner, and it wasn't that hard :)
In Java IoC / DI is a very common practice which is extensively used in web applications, nearly all available frameworks and Java EE. On the other hand, there are also lots of big Python web applications, but beside of Zope (which I've heard should be really horrible to code) IoC doesn't seem to be very common in the Python world. (Please name some examples if you think that I'm wrong).
There are of course several clones of popular Java IoC frameworks available for Python, springpython for example. But none of them seems to get used practically. At least, I've never stumpled upon a Django or sqlalchemy+<insert your favorite wsgi toolkit here> based web application which uses something like that.
In my opinion IoC has reasonable advantages and would make it easy to replace the django-default-user-model for example, but extensive usage of interface classes and IoC in Python looks a bit odd and not »pythonic«. But maybe someone has a better explanation, why IoC isn't widely used in Python.
I don't actually think that DI/IoC are that uncommon in Python. What is uncommon, however, are DI/IoC frameworks/containers.
Think about it: what does a DI container do? It allows you to
wire together independent components into a complete application ...
... at runtime.
We have names for "wiring together" and "at runtime":
scripting
dynamic
So, a DI container is nothing but an interpreter for a dynamic scripting language. Actually, let me rephrase that: a typical Java/.NET DI container is nothing but a crappy interpreter for a really bad dynamic scripting language with butt-ugly, sometimes XML-based, syntax.
When you program in Python, why would you want to use an ugly, bad scripting language when you have a beautiful, brilliant scripting language at your disposal? Actually, that's a more general question: when you program in pretty much any language, why would you want to use an ugly, bad scripting language when you have Jython and IronPython at your disposal?
So, to recap: the practice of DI/IoC is just as important in Python as it is in Java, for exactly the same reasons. The implementation of DI/IoC however, is built into the language and often so lightweight that it completely vanishes.
(Here's a brief aside for an analogy: in assembly, a subroutine call is a pretty major deal - you have to save your local variables and registers to memory, save your return address somewhere, change the instruction pointer to the subroutine you are calling, arrange for it to somehow jump back into your subroutine when it is finished, put the arguments somewhere where the callee can find them, and so on. IOW: in assembly, "subroutine call" is a Design Pattern, and before there were languages like Fortran which had subroutine calls built in, people were building their own "subroutine frameworks". Would you say that subroutine calls are "uncommon" in Python, just because you don't use subroutine frameworks?)
BTW: for an example of what it looks like to take DI to its logical conclusion, take a look at Gilad Bracha's Newspeak Programming Language and his writings on the subject:
Constructors Considered Harmful
Lethal Injection
A Ban on Imports (continued)
IoC and DI are super common in mature Python code. You just don't need a framework to implement DI thanks to duck typing.
The best example is how you set up a Django application using settings.py:
# settings.py
CACHES = {
'default': {
'BACKEND': 'django_redis.cache.RedisCache',
'LOCATION': REDIS_URL + '/1',
},
'local': {
'BACKEND': 'django.core.cache.backends.locmem.LocMemCache',
'LOCATION': 'snowflake',
}
}
Django Rest Framework utilizes DI heavily:
class FooView(APIView):
# The "injected" dependencies:
permission_classes = (IsAuthenticated, )
throttle_classes = (ScopedRateThrottle, )
parser_classes = (parsers.FormParser, parsers.JSONParser, parsers.MultiPartParser)
renderer_classes = (renderers.JSONRenderer,)
def get(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
pass
def post(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
pass
Let me remind (source):
"Dependency Injection" is a 25-dollar term for a 5-cent concept. [...] Dependency injection means giving an object its instance variables. [...].
Part of it is the way the module system works in Python. You can get a sort of "singleton" for free, just by importing it from a module. Define an actual instance of an object in a module, and then any client code can import it and actually get a working, fully constructed / populated object.
This is in contrast to Java, where you don't import actual instances of objects. This means you are always having to instantiate them yourself, (or use some sort of IoC/DI style approach). You can mitigate the hassle of having to instantiate everything yourself by having static factory methods (or actual factory classes), but then you still incur the resource overhead of actually creating new ones each time.
Django makes great use of inversion of control. For instance, the database server is selected by the configuration file, then the framework provides appropriate database wrapper instances to database clients.
The difference is that Python has first-class types. Data types, including classes, are themselves objects. If you want something to use a particular class, simply name the class. For example:
if config_dbms_name == 'postgresql':
import psycopg
self.database_interface = psycopg
elif config_dbms_name == 'mysql':
...
Later code can then create a database interface by writing:
my_db_connection = self.database_interface()
# Do stuff with database.
Instead of the boilerplate factory functions that Java and C++ need, Python does it with one or two lines of ordinary code. This is the strength of functional versus imperative programming.
It seems that people really don't get what Dependency injection and inversion of control mean anymore.
The practice of using inversion of control is to have classes or functions that depend on other classes or functions, but instead of creating the instances whithin the class or function code it is better to receive them as parameters, so loose coupling can be achieved. That has many benefits as more testability and to achieve the liskov substitution principle.
You see, by working with interfaces and injections, your code gets more maintainable, since you can change the behavior easily, because you won't have to rewrite a single line of code (maybe a line or two on the DI configuration) of your class to change its behavior, since the classes that implement the interface your class is waiting for can vary independently as long as they follow the interface. One of the best strategies to keep code decoupled and easy to maintain is to follow at least the single responsibility, substitution and dependency inversion principles.
What's a DI library good for if you can instantiate an object yourself inside a package and import it to inject it yourself? The chosen answer is right, since java has no procedural sections (code outside of classes), all that goes into boring configuration xml's, hence the need of a class to instantiate and inject dependencies on a lazy load fashion so you don't blow away your performance, while on python you just code the injections in the "procedural" (code outside classes) sections of your code.
Haven't used Python in several years, but I would say that it has more to do with it being a dynamically typed language than anything else. For a simple example, in Java, if I wanted to test that something wrote to standard out appropriately I could use DI and pass in any PrintStream to capture the text being written and verify it. When I'm working in Ruby, however, I can dynamically replace the 'puts' method on STDOUT to do the verify, leaving DI completely out of the picture. If the only reason I'm creating an abstraction is to test the class that's using it (think File system operations or the clock in Java) then DI/IoC creates unnecessary complexity in the solution.
Actually, it is quite easy to write sufficiently clean and compact code with DI (I wonder, will it be/stay pythonic then, but anyway :) ), for example I actually perefer this way of coding:
def polite(name_str):
return "dear " + name_str
def rude(name_str):
return name_str + ", you, moron"
def greet(name_str, call=polite):
print "Hello, " + call(name_str) + "!"
_
>>greet("Peter")
Hello, dear Peter!
>>greet("Jack", rude)
Hello, Jack, you, moron!
Yes, this can be viewed as just a simple form of parameterizing functions/classes, but it does its work. So, maybe Python's default-included batteries are enough here too.
P.S. I have also posted a larger example of this naive approach at Dynamically evaluating simple boolean logic in Python.
IoC/DI is a design concept, but unfortunately it's often taken as a concept that applies to certain languages (or typing systems). I'd love to see dependency injection containers become far more popular in Python. There's Spring, but that's a super-framework and seems to be a direct port of the Java concepts without much consideration for "The Python Way."
Given Annotations in Python 3, I decided to have a crack at a full featured, but simple, dependency injection container: https://github.com/zsims/dic . It's based on some concepts from a .NET dependency injection container (which IMO is fantastic if you're ever playing in that space), but mutated with Python concepts.
I think due to the dynamic nature of python people don't often see the need for another dynamic framework. When a class inherits from the new-style 'object' you can create a new variable dynamically (https://wiki.python.org/moin/NewClassVsClassicClass).
i.e.
In plain python:
#application.py
class Application(object):
def __init__(self):
pass
#main.py
Application.postgres_connection = PostgresConnection()
#other.py
postgres_connection = Application.postgres_connection
db_data = postgres_connection.fetchone()
However have a look at https://github.com/noodleflake/pyioc this might be what you are looking for.
i.e. In pyioc
from libs.service_locator import ServiceLocator
#main.py
ServiceLocator.register(PostgresConnection)
#other.py
postgres_connection = ServiceLocator.resolve(PostgresConnection)
db_data = postgres_connection.fetchone()
pytest fixtures all based on DI (source)
Check out FastAPI, it has dependency injection built-in. For example:
from fastapi import Depends, FastAPI
async def get_db():
db = DBSession()
try:
yield db
except Exception:
db.rollback()
raise
finally:
db.close()
app = FastAPI()
#app.get("/items")
def get_items(db=Depends(get_db)):
return db.get_items()
I back "Jörg W Mittag" answer: "The Python implementation of DI/IoC is so lightweight that it completely vanishes".
To back up this statement, take a look at the famous Martin Fowler's example ported from Java to Python: Python:Design_Patterns:Inversion_of_Control
As you can see from the above link, a "Container" in Python can be written in 8 lines of code:
class Container:
def __init__(self, system_data):
for component_name, component_class, component_args in system_data:
if type(component_class) == types.ClassType:
args = [self.__dict__[arg] for arg in component_args]
self.__dict__[component_name] = component_class(*args)
else:
self.__dict__[component_name] = component_class
My 2cents is that in most Python applications you don't need it and, even if you needed it, chances are that many Java haters (and incompetent fiddlers who believe to be developers) consider it as something bad, just because it's popular in Java.
An IoC system is actually useful when you have complex networks of objects, where each object may be a dependency for several others and, in turn, be itself a dependant on other objects. In such a case you'll want to define all these objects once and have a mechanism to put them together automatically, based on as many implicit rules as possible. If you also have configuration to be defined in a simple way by the application user/administrator, that's an additional reason to desire an IoC system that can read its components from something like a simple XML file (which would be the configuration).
The typical Python application is much simpler, just a bunch of scripts, without such a complex architecture. Personally I'm aware of what an IoC actually is (contrary to those who wrote certain answers here) and I've never felt the need for it in my limited Python experience (also I don't use Spring everywhere, not when the advantages it gives don't justify its development overhead).
That said, there are Python situations where the IoC approach is actually useful and, in fact, I read here that Django uses it.
The same reasoning above could be applied to Aspect Oriented Programming in the Java world, with the difference that the number of cases where AOP is really worthwhile is even more limited.
You can do dependency injection with Python manually, but manual approach has its downsides:
lots of boilerplate code to do the wiring. You can use dynamic features of Python to do the injection, but then you're loosing IDE support (e.g. Ctrl+Space in PyCharm), and you're making code harder to understand and debug
no standards: every programmer has its own way for solving same problems, this leads to reinventing the wheel, understanding each other's code can quickly become a pain. Dependency injection library provides easy framework to plug-in
To have it all we NEED a dependency injection framework, for example this one https://python-dependency-injector.ets-labs.org/index.html seems to be the most mature DI framework for Python.
For smaller apps DI container is not necessary, for anything that has few hundred lines of code or more, DI container is a must have to keep your code maintaineable.
I agree with #Jorg in the point that DI/IoC is possible, easier and even more beautiful in Python. What's missing is the frameworks supporting it, but there are a few exceptions. To point a couple of examples that come to my mind:
Django comments let you wire your own Comment class with your custom logic and forms. [More Info]
Django let you use a custom Profile object to attach to your User model. This is not completely IoC but is a good approach. Personally I'd like to replace the hole User model as the comments framework does. [More Info]
IoC containers are "mimicked" mostly using **kwargs
class A:
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
print(kwargs)
Class B:
pass
Class C:
pass
Ainstance = A(b=B, c=C)
In my opinion, things like dependency injection are symptoms of a rigid and over-complex framework. When the main body of code becomes much too weighty to change easily, you find yourself having to pick small parts of it, define interfaces for them, and then allowing people to change behaviour via the objects that plug into those interfaces. That's all well and good, but it's better to avoid that sort of complexity in the first place.
It's also the symptom of a statically-typed language. When the only tool you have to express abstraction is inheritance, then that's pretty much what you use everywhere. Having said that, C++ is pretty similar but never picked up the fascination with Builders and Interfaces everywhere that Java developers did. It is easy to get over-exuberant with the dream of being flexible and extensible at the cost of writing far too much generic code with little real benefit. I think it's a cultural thing.
Typically I think Python people are used to picking the right tool for the job, which is a coherent and simple whole, rather than the One True Tool (With A Thousand Possible Plugins) that can do anything but offers a bewildering array of possible configuration permutations. There are still interchangeable parts where necessary, but with no need for the big formalism of defining fixed interfaces, due to the flexibility of duck-typing and the relative simplicity of the language.
Unlike the strong typed nature in Java. Python's duck typing behavior makes it so easy to pass objects around.
Java developers are focusing on the constructing the class strcuture and relation between objects, while keeping things flexible. IoC is extremely important for achieving this.
Python developers are focusing on getting the work done. They just wire up classes when they need it. They don't even have to worry about the type of the class. As long as it can quack, it's a duck! This nature leaves no room for IoC.
One of my favorite features about python is that you can write configuration files in python that are very simple to read and understand. If you put a few boundaries on yourself, you can be pretty confident that non-pythonistas will know exactly what you mean and will be perfectly capable of reconfiguring your program.
My question is, what exactly are those boundaries? My own personal heuristic was
Avoid flow control. No functions, loops, or conditionals. Those wouldn't be in a text config file and people aren't expecting to have understand them. In general, it probably shouldn't matter the order in which your statements execute.
Stick to literal assignments. Methods and functions called on objects are harder to think through. Anything implicit is going to be a mess. If there's something complicated that has to happen with your parameters, change how they're interpreted.
Language keywords and error handling are right out.
I guess I ask this because I came across a situation with my Django config file where it seems to be useful to break these rules. I happen to like it, but I feel a little guilty. Basically, my project is deployed through svn checkouts to a couple different servers that won't all be configured the same (some will share a database, some won't, for example). So, I throw a hook at the end:
try:
from settings_overrides import *
LOCALIZED = True
except ImportError:
LOCALIZED = False
where settings_overrides is on the python path but outside the working copy. What do you think, either about this example, or about python config boundaries in general?
There is a Django wiki page, which addresses exactly the thing you're asking.
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/SplitSettings
Do not reinvent the wheel. Use configparser and INI files. Python files are to easy to break by someone, who doesn't know Python.
Your heuristics are good. Rules are made so that boundaries are set and only broken when it's obviously a vastly better solution than the alternate.
Still, I can't help but wonder that the site checking code should be in the parser, and an additional configuration item added that selects which option should be taken.
I don't think that in this case the alternative is so bad that breaking the rules makes sense...
-Adam
I think it's a pain vs pleasure argument.
It's not wrong to put code in a Python config file because it's all valid Python, but it does mean you could confuse a user who comes in to reconfigure an app. If you're that worried about it, rope it off with comments explaining roughly what it does and that the user shouldn't edit it, rather edit the settings_overrides.py file.
As for your example, that's nigh on essential for developers to test then deploy their apps. Definitely more pleasure than pain. But you should really do this instead:
LOCALIZED = False
try:
from settings_overrides import *
except ImportError:
pass
And in your settings_overrides.py file:
LOCALIZED = True
... If nothing but to make it clear what that file does.. What you're doing there splits overrides into two places.
As a general practice, see the other answers on the page; it all depends. Specifically for Django, however, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with writing code in the settings.py file... after all, the settings file IS code :-)
The Django docs on settings themselves say:
A settings file is just a Python module with module-level variables.
And give the example:
assign settings dynamically using normal Python syntax. For example:
MY_SETTING = [str(i) for i in range(30)]
Settings as code is also a security risk. You import your "config", but in reality you are executing whatever code is in that file. Put config in files that you parse first and you can reject nonsensical or malicious values, even if it is more work for you. I blogged about this in December 2008.