On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Christian Tismer wrote: > On 2/10/11 4:02 AM, Jeff Senn wrote: >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:27 PM, Christian Tismer wrote: >> >>> And I'm wondering about the connection to openWRT ??? It is a quite >>> different theme and I read a lot about it for my Buffalo router. >>> What is the relation to Stackless? >>> Although all this router stuff is great, I have very different thought >>> here... >>> >>> Maybe we should chat a bit by private mails. >>> >>> cheers - chris >> Chris- >> >> I'm wondering if the thought you have is something like: >> >> Since it's on an embedded platform with limited OS and perhaps >> no C extensions, could we have a simple stackless that >> *only* does soft-switching? >> >> If so, I am interested in this thought since I have an embedded >> platform where it would be interesting -- I've looked briefly at >> it... only enough to realize that it's not trivial to get rid >> of all the dependencies on stack switching given the current >> organization of the code... >> >> And if that wasn't your thought... >> anyone care to think about it? :-) >> > Hi Jeff, > > no, I actually meant OpenWRT, DD-WRT and others, which do a great > job in the end. But I don't like the way they are implemented. Hard to > maintain, arcane software technology. I would like to find the time > and redo some of that. Writing a nice tool in Python that generates > the code for a router, produces any GUI you like. I would go so far > to provide the router with an API only and to write a PyQT application > to access the router. > > But they squeeze it all in there, with some Javascript, with menus that > work, but are not really flexible, are limited when it comes to more > advanced stuff, and, most importantly, there are no good tests at all. > I think there could be done so much better if they leave this C level > coding by hand. > > But I think this is a common problem with lots of embedded > software. They think it must be written in C, to become fast. > This is in multiple ways very false.
Yep. Interesting thoughts. > --- > > On your simple stackless with soft-switching only: > Well, at first glance, we just need to disable the hard-switching part. > Would that what remains from Stackless then be enough for you? Yes. But I tried it quickly and it seemed non-obvious -- I didn't pursue very much, but it appears that the preparation in the code for later possible hard-switching, makes it difficult how to see to *simply* "disable the hard-switching part". If it's more obvious to you please let me know - even if you say it might be easy, it may cause me to go look again... > Of course it could be interesting to have the complete Stackless > solution in PyPy (very doable) and then cross-compile for that > router thingie? But I'm not sure if that's the whole story, since PyPy > is quite huge. Where are the limits for your platform? PyPy feels too big... I really want a stripped down version and memory (and stack space!) are a concern. > It would work without the JIT, and there is probably a problem with > generated code, anyway I guess? Then yeah, cross-compilation > of Stackless PyPy-c could be a solution. Executable code only in flash/ROM, so JIT/(dynamically) generated code don't help any... Consider: embedded processor, no OS, just one Python "scheduler" loading/ scheduling "processes" written in Python. Really a very minimal "pure Python OS". > > what do you think? > > 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
