On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:53:46PM -0800, Bill Janssen wrote: > Perhaps the right idea is to fix the various problems of asyncore.
The problem with making asyncore more useful is that you end up with (a cut down version of) Twisted, although not one that would be able to integrate with Twisted. asyncore/asynchat and Twisted are really not that different, and anything you do to enhance the former will make it look more like the latter. I'd personally rather fork parts of Twisted, in spite of the maintenance issues, than re-invent Twisted, fix all the issues Twisted already solves and face the same kind of maintenance issues. It would be perfect if the twisted-light in the stdlib would integrate with the 'real' Twisted, so that users can 'upgrade' their programs just by installing Twisted and using the extra features. Not that I think we should stop at the event core and the TCP/SSL parts of Twisted; imaplib, poplib, httplib, xmlrpclib, for instance, could all do with Twisted-inspired alternatives (or even replacements, if the synchronous API was kept the same.) The synchronous versions are fine for simple scripts (or complex scripts that don't mind long blocking operations.) If we start exporting a really useful asynchronous framework, I would expect asynchronous counterparts to the useful higher-level networking modules, too. But that doesn't have to come right away ;) Anything beyond simple bugfixes on asyncore/asynchat seems like a terrible waste of effort, to me. And I hardly ever use Twisted. -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com