On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:17 PM, <gl...@divmod.com> wrote: > > On 08:46 pm, gu...@python.org wrote: >> >> This seems to be the crux of the problem with asyncore, ever since it >> was added to the stdlib -- there's no real API, so every change >> potentially breaks something. I wish we could start over with a proper >> design under a new name. > > Might I suggest "reactor"... or possibly "twisted", as that new name? ;-) > > (Sorry, I was trying to avoid this thread, but that was an opening I could > drive a truck through). > > In all seriousness, I seem to recall that Thomas Wouters was interested in > doing integrating some portion of Twisted core into the standard library as > of last PyCon. I mention him specifically by name in the hopes that it will > jog his memory. > > At the very least, this might serve as a basis for an abstract API for > asyncore: > > http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/8.2.0/api/twisted.internet.interfaces.IProtocol.html
I hope we have learned from asyncore that a future-proof and maximally flexible design of such an API is not easy. This is one of those cases where I believe thinking hard up front will really pay off. In this case I would recommend going through a full-blown PEP process before committing to an API, to avoid making the same mistake twice. (I don't mean this as a dig at Twisted, just as an observation about this particular design problem. If Twisted solves all the problems already, writing the PEP should be easy.) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
