Tristan Seligmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Richard Tew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-14 16:49:03 +0000]: > > > I am not writing a competing event driven mechanism. What I was doing > > was feeling out whether there was any interest in better support for > > asynchronous calls. > > I interpreted your suggestions as being about enhancing asyncore with > IOCP (or similar); sure, asyncore is already a "competing" event driven > mechanism, but for all intents and purposes it is "dead" as there is not > much in the way of active development on it, and a relatively small > remaining user base. You seemed to be suggesting that asyncore be > revived by extending the implementation, as well as sprinkling some > generator / tasklets / channels / etc. sugar on top of it.
It's not dead; much code is still being developed for it, and I recently stepped up as its new maintainer. One of the reasons it's not getting huge new feature additions is generally because it has all of the functionality necessary to get someone started in asynchronous socket programming. That's its purpose. Could it be expanded to support IOCP on Windows? Sure. Is it necessary for its survival? No. - Josiah _______________________________________________ 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
