Hi Richard,
I was just going through my older starred emails (of which I have
many...) and realized neither myself nor Christian ever replied to you
on this! I'm so sorry! :(
Can I ask what your motivation for this request is? I'm assuming it's
the usual, i.e. the function in question would be processor or disk
intensive and you want to shunt the work to the remote machine.
Offhand I'm not personally sure it's worth what would probably be a
decent amount of work, just to get it "baked in" to Fabric, not sure
if Christian agrees. An easy enough workaround would be to put() your
function, in a Python source file, to the remote machine, then run()
it (i.e. run('python ~/my_just_now_uploaded_script.py')).
Again, feel free to expound on why having this in core Fabric would be
awesome, I'm all ears, but as always we have to prioritize our limited
time (and ensure our tool doesn't expose an enormous feature set :)).
Best,
Jeff
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Richard Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> [apologies if this pops up in the moderation queue - I'm trying to subscribe
> but I've not received any robot response to my application]
>
> Fabric is cool ;)
>
> I'd like to propose being able to define a function locally that's executed
> remotely. The inspiration for this comes from py.execnet:
>
> http://codespeak.net/py/dist/execnet.html
>
> Thoughts? I believe the addition of this capability would introduce whole new
> levels of awesome to Fabric :)
>
>
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fab-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
>
_______________________________________________
Fab-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
