On 2/7/06, Mark Edgington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, perhaps the notation could be improved, but the idea of the
> semaphore in the patch is "Does it run inside of a multithreaded
> environment, and could its push() functions be called from a different
> thread?"
The long-term fate of asynco
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 13:12 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
>
> >> Here I think you meant that medusa didn't handle computation in separate
> >> threads instead.
> >
> > No, I pretty much meant what I said :-)
> >
> > Medusa didn't have any concept of a deferred, hence the idea
Donovan Baarda wrote:
>> Here I think you meant that medusa didn't handle computation in separate
>> threads instead.
>
> No, I pretty much meant what I said :-)
>
> Medusa didn't have any concept of a deferred, hence the idea of using
> one to collect the results of a long computation in another
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 15:14 +0100, Valentino Volonghi aka Dialtone
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 01:23:26PM +, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > I believe that Twisted does pretty much this with it's "deferred" stuff.
> > It shoves slow stuff off for processing in a separate thread that
> > re-syncs
Mark Edgington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > That patch looks wrong. What does it mean to "run in a thread"?
> > All code runs in a thread, all the time: sometime, that thread
> > is the main thread.
> >
> > Furthermore, I can't see any presumed thread-unsafety in
Not terrible. I think I may try re-working Medusa to use this.
Bill
___
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-archi
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:42:39 +0100
Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neal Norwitz wrote:
> > On 2/7/06, Christopher Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Twisted is wonderful, powerful, rich, and very large. Perhaps a
> >small > > subset could be carefully extracted
> >>
> >The s
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> That patch looks wrong. What does it mean to "run in a thread"?
> All code runs in a thread, all the time: sometime, that thread
> is the main thread.
>
> Furthermore, I can't see any presumed thread-unsafety in asynchat.
Ok, perhaps the notation could be improved, bu
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 11:45 -0800, Keith Dart wrote:
> There are other, third-party, SMTP server objects available. You could
> always use one of those.
Very true. In fact, Twisted comes to the rescue again here. When I
needed to test Mailman's NNTP integration I could either spend several
wee
Barry Warsaw wrote the following on 2006-02-08 at 13:45 PST:
===
> Or the guy who needs to whip together an RFC-compliant minimal SMTP
> server to use in unit tests of some random Python implemented mailing
> list manager. Just fer instance. But still...
>
> > But I can't speak for how often thi
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 10:24 -0800, Robert Brewer wrote:
> It'd be a huge loss for the random fellow who needs to write an email
> fixup proxy between a broken client and Exim in a couple of hours. ;)
Or the guy who needs to whip together an RFC-compliant minimal SMTP
server to use in unit tests o
Steve Holden wrote:
> In case the processing of events needed to block? If I'm processing web
> requests in an async* dispatch loop and a request needs the results of a
> (probably lengthy) database query in order to generate its output, how
> do I give the dispatcher control again to process th
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 16:01 -0800, Robert Brewer wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, but please keep in mind that the smtpd module uses
> > both, currently, and would have to be rewritten if either is
> > "removed".
>
> Would that really be a huge loss?
It'd be a huge loss for the rand
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:42:39 +0100
Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neal Norwitz wrote:
> > On 2/7/06, Christopher Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Twisted is wonderful, powerful, rich, and very large. Perhaps a
> >small > > subset could be carefully extracted
> >>
> >The s
Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Christopher Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Twisted is wonderful, powerful, rich, and very large. Perhaps a small
>> > subset could be carefully extracted
>>
>> The subject of putting (parts of) Twisted into the standard library
>> comes up once every
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>
> Anything beyond simple bugfixes on asyncore/asynchat seems like a terrible
> waste of effort, to me. And I hardly ever use Twisted.
+1
--
Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"19. A language that doesn't affect
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 01:23:26PM +, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> I believe that Twisted does pretty much this with it's "deferred" stuff.
> It shoves slow stuff off for processing in a separate thread that
> re-syncs with the event loop when it's finished.
Deferreds are only an elaborate way to d
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 02:33 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
> > Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > > Tim Peters wrote:
> [...]
> > > What is the reason that people want to use threads when they can have
> > > poll/select-style message processing? Why does Zope require threads?
> > > IOW,
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 02:33 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > Tim Peters wrote:
[...]
> > What is the reason that people want to use threads when they can have
> > poll/select-style message processing? Why does Zope require threads?
> > IOW, why would anybody *want* a "threads
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Steve Holden wrote:
>>
>>
What is the reason that people want to use threads when they can have
poll/select-style message processing? Why does Zope require threads?
IOW, why would anybody *want* a "threadsafe patch
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. a
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Steve Holden wrote:
>
> > > What is the reason that people want to use threads when they can have
> > > poll/select-style message processing? Why does Zope require threads?
> > > IOW, why would anybody *want* a "threadsafe patch for asynchat"?
> > >
Steve Holden wrote:
> > What is the reason that people want to use threads when they can have
> > poll/select-style message processing? Why does Zope require threads?
> > IOW, why would anybody *want* a "threadsafe patch for asynchat"?
> >
> In case the processing of events needed to block? If I'm
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
>
>>Bugs and "missing features" in asyncore. For ZEO's purposes, if I had
>>designed it, I expect it would have used threads (without asyncore).
>>However, bits of code still sitting around suggest that it was at
>>least the _intent_ at one time that ZE
Tim Peters wrote:
> Bugs and "missing features" in asyncore. For ZEO's purposes, if I had
> designed it, I expect it would have used threads (without asyncore).
> However, bits of code still sitting around suggest that it was at
> least the _intent_ at one time that ZEO be able to run without thr
[Josiah Carlson]
> ...
> Back to the topic that Guido was really complaining about: Zope +
> asyncore. I don't doubt that getting Zope to play nicely with asyncore
> was difficult,
It's more that mixing asyncore with threads is a bloody nightmare, and
ZEO and Zope both do that. Zope (but not ZEO
> what other reactive socket framework is there that would fit well into
> the standard library ? is twisted really simple enough ?
I've been very happy with Medusa, which is asyncore-based.
Perhaps the right idea is to fix the various problems of asyncore. We
might lift the similar code from t
On 2/7/06, Christopher Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Twisted is wonderful, powerful, rich, and very large. Perhaps a small
> > subset could be carefully extracted
>
> The subject of putting (parts of) Twisted into the standard library
> comes up once every 6 months or so, at least on
On 2/8/06, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> > what other reactive socket framework is there that would fit well into
> > the standard library ? is twisted really simple enough ?
>
> Twisted is wonderful, powerful, rich, and v
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 16:01 -0800, Robert Brewer wrote:
> Perhaps, but please keep in mind that the smtpd module uses both, currently,
> and would have to be rewritten if either is "removed".
Would that really be a huge loss?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed messa
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO asynchat and asyncore are braindead. The should really be removed
> from the standard library. The code is 10 years old and represents at
> least 10-year-old thinking about how to do this. The amount of hackery
> in Zope related to asyncore was out
On 2/7/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> what other reactive socket framework is there that would fit well into
> the standard library ? is twisted really simple enough ?
Twisted is wonderful, powerful, rich, and very large. Perhaps a small
subset could be carefully extracted
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> IMO asynchat and asyncore are braindead. The should really be removed
> from the standard library. The code is 10 years old and represents at
> least 10-year-old thinking about how to do this. The amount of hackery
> in Zope related to asyncore was outrageous -- basically
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> IMO asynchat and asyncore are braindead. The should really be removed
> from the standard library. The code is 10 years old and represents at
> least 10-year-old thinking about how to do this.
strange. I'd say it works perfectly fine for what it was designed for
(after
IMO asynchat and asyncore are braindead. The should really be removed
from the standard library. The code is 10 years old and represents at
least 10-year-old thinking about how to do this. The amount of hackery
in Zope related to asyncore was outrageous -- basically most of
asyncore's guts were rep
Mark Edgington wrote:
> Does anyone have any comments about applying the following patch to
> asynchat?
That patch looks wrong. What does it mean to "run in a thread"?
All code runs in a thread, all the time: sometime, that thread
is the main thread.
Furthermore, I can't see any presumed thread
36 matches
Mail list logo
