On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:34 AM Michael Martinez <
writemichaelmarti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew
> To me, Websockets is the defining use case for using Django Channels. From
> a user POV, saying that Channels is focused on the wrong problem
> (websockets) is like saying Django is too focused on HTTP.
> When I have selected Channels (vs other tools), my rationale was not:
> "*I need a general purpose async platform and it would be great if it
> worked with Websockets, ZeromQ and played nice with Django...*"
> (therefore Django Channels vs Tornado vs ...)
> rather my rationale is more like:
> "*I need to build real time features with Websockets using Django..*"
> (therefore Django Channels).

Oh, I totally get that, and Channels does well at providing WebSockets -
the problem is that it's still an area with a lot less interest and also
one I personally have no use for at the moment. Those things combined mean
that WebSockets is not something I'm really interested in supporting for
free right now; I'd have to be paid to work on it (as I was with the
Mozilla grant for a lot of Channels' development).


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to