Hi,
> However, I think we can safely say that the Python community has not
> effectively done this over our twenty-plus year lifetime.
I'd like to offer a couple remarks here:
1) implementing a protocol usually goes beyond parsing (which, it's
true, can easily be done "sans IO").
2) many non-trivial protocols are stateful, at least at the level of a
single connection; the statefulness may require doing I/O spontaneously
(example: sending a keepalive packet). You can partly solve this by
having a lower layer implementing the stateless parts ("sans IO") and an
upper layer implementing the rest above it, but depending on the
protocol it may be impossible to offer an *entire* implementation that
doesn't depend on at least some notion of I/O.
3) the Protocol abstraction in asyncio (massively inspired from Twisted,
of course) is a pragmatic way to minimize the I/O coupling of protocol
implementations (and one of the reasons why I pushed for it during the
PEP discussion): it still has some I/O-related elements to it (a couple
callbacks on Protocol, and a couple methods on Transport), but in a way
that makes ignoring them much easier than when using "streams", sockets
or similar concepts.
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
Async-sig mailing list
Async-sig@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/async-sig
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
