Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: > Greg, productive discussion is not furthered by the > unsupported statement of one position or another.
Sorry, I'll expand on that a bit. The "problem" I was referring to is the turf wars between all the event-driven frameworks that all want to do things their own way. Solving that is going to require them to give up control and be willing to agree on a standard. It seems reasonable to consider making a suitably enhanced version of asyncore the standard, because it's small and it's already in the stdlib. Someone seemed to be claiming that it would be too hard to rework Twisted's event loop to use anything else, so we had better just use Twisted instead of asyncore, which sounded like a turf-war kind of statement. (That's what I meant by "part of the problem" -- I should really have said it's an *example* of the problem.) From a later post, it seems the main concern is that expanding asyncore to the point where it could support Twisted would involve reinventing most of Twisted's event loop implementation. That's a reasonable point to make, and I don't see anything wrong with examining Twisted's implementation to see what can be used. Whether to adopt Twisted's *API* is a separate issue, though (see next post). -- Greg _______________________________________________ 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
