pushy is a nice project. i also thought of making a zero-install server, but i realized services are a better direction. it allows you to use it over the web, instead of the oh-so-lame currently used protocols, such as XMLRPC, SOAP, WSDL, and what not. i don't want to pass large XMLs over an HTTP server, just to invoke a line of code.
that was the purpose of rpyc. using a zero-install server basically means going back to the classic rpyc (2.6), where you have no control over what your client gets. it's a different use case, and rpyc 3.xx supports it as well. if you want a "zero-install" server a la pushy, you can achieve by doing ssh mymachine ./rpyc_classic.py -p 12345 ... run python client ... ssh mymachine pkill -2 rpyc_classic.py so yeah, pushy integrates it all better and supports more transports than ssh alone, but i don't consider it as "extra power". you can write a small wrapper on top of rpyc, call it `rpycssh`, that does the same. as for the speed, i'll try to understand your code better when i have some free time. i don't see a reason that running a loop over 39 items should take 3.2 seconds, on the localhost. i'll look into it. -tomer An NCO and a Gentleman On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 07:38, Fruch <[email protected]> wrote: > here is the code: > https://gist.github.com/863616 > > (you'll need to start a rpyc server and pushy server on localhost in the > background, > mine was embedded inside a C program, so I didn't attached it) > > from my POV, pushy is actually achieving all the three goals you've > mentioned. > and as he said on his blog, RPyC was his inspiration. > > he sure did a good job. I still think we should reconsider merging with his > code. > adding a wrapper to support the old rpyc code > > BTW, I've found this: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1239035/asynchronous-method-call-in-python > > it has in one of the replays nice replacement for async, that should work > with client code only (I've haven't tried it yet with pushy/rpyc) > >
