On 2/12/07, Tristan Seligmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Richard Tew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-12 13:46:43 +0000]: > > Perhaps there is a better way. And I of course have no concept of > > how this might be done on other platforms. > > Building on an existing framework that does this seems better than > reinventing the wheel, for something of this magnitude.
This to me seems to be the low level support you would build something like Twisted on top of. Pushing Twisted so that others can get it seems a little over the top. In any case I'm not building an application. I am transparently making standard library calls yield to a scheduler while whatever they would do happens asynchronously. Generic support for this allows me to make Stackless usage like normal Python usage but with microthreads. I would hope if Dustin went ahead with a generator based microthread solution he find it useful as well. Lumbering Stackless at least with a framework like Twisted pushes complexity up to the user, something Stackless cannot afford. Cheers, Richard. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
