Btw, branching off at an angle: I noticed that much of the pickling support in Stackless is about providing pickling for regular built-in types. Stuff like iterators, for example. I was surprised at how much of the pickling support is for non-stackless kind of things.
In my opinion, these really should be picklable without stackless support. Any thoughts? I'm at PyCon and I could possibly sell the idea to migrate some of the tasklet pickling over to vanilla Python. K -----Original Message----- From: Christian Tismer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26. mars 2009 18:32 To: Andrew Francis Cc: Alain Poirier; Kristján Valur Jónsson; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Stackless] Google Application Engine Thread on Stackless On 3/26/09 7:10 PM, Andrew Francis wrote: > Hi Kristjan: > >> Is pickling really necessary? > > YES! To be honest, I do doubt this. Not to be misunderstood, I really support it and find it useful. But is there anything about pickling that cannot be replaced by something else? I think, while being tedious, in principle it is always possible to emulate this. IOW, for a Stackless without pickling, it would be possible to implement it in plain Python, given that some introspection is available. Please spend a couple of thoughts about it, and tell me if I'm wrong or right? cheers - chris -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]> tismerysoft GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9A : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ work +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 30 80 90 57 05 PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/ _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
