Re: My Take on Django Channels

Hi Andrew, Replying off-list just to say that I totally understand your frustration here, and I wish I weren't contributing to it :( I hope I'm managing to speak my mind without being an asshole about it, and I hope you'd tell me if I failed. Really glad Jacob stepped up on the DEP; I was

Re: My Take on Django Channels

> On May 6, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Mark Lavin wrote: > > Ryan, > > Sorry if you felt I was ignoring your reply to focus on the discussion with > Andrew. You both made a lot of the same points at about the same time but I > did want to touch on a couple things. I totally get

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Ryan, Sorry if you felt I was ignoring your reply to focus on the discussion with Andrew. You both made a lot of the same points at about the same time but I did want to touch on a couple things. On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:21:59 PM UTC-4, Ryan Hiebert wrote: > > Thank you, Mark, for

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Yes I agree that we do want different things and have different goals. There is nothing wrong with coming to a state of respectful disagreement. I'm glad that some of the feedback could be helpful and I hope it can be incorporated into Channels. As for a DEP, that would be nice and I'd love to

Re: My Take on Django Channels

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Mark Lavin wrote: > Yes I agree with the value of a standardized way of communicating between > these processes and I listed that as a highlight of Channels, though it > quickly shifted into criticism. I think that's where we are crossing

Re: My Take on Django Channels

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: > > I've no desire either to aggravate your RSI or kick you in the teeth! I > understand the multiple competing pressures here and won't stand in the > way of a merge into 1.10 sans DEP if that still seems like the best path >

Re: My Take on Django Channels

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: > I think channels, multiple-template-engines, and > reworked-middleware (and migrations, for that matter) are all > rethinkings of long-standing core aspects of how Django works, which in > my mind makes them prime DEP

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Yes I agree with the value of a standardized way of communicating between these processes and I listed that as a highlight of Channels, though it quickly shifted into criticism. I think that's where we are crossing paths with relation to Kombu/AMQP as well. I find the messaging aspect of

Re: My Take on Django Channels

On 05/05/2016 04:37 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > To be honest, I had entirely forgotten the DEP process existed until > this thread started up; I'm not sure what to blame this on, but as a > member of the tech board I haven't got an email about approving a DEP > since last October, so it's been a

Re: My Take on Django Channels

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 05/05/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > I will put my hand up and say that this sidestepped the DEP process, and > > that's entirely my fault. It was not my intention; I've been working on > > this for

Re: My Take on Django Channels

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Mark Lavin wrote: > Thank you for your comments and I have some brief replies. > > > If I'm understanding it correctly, groups are an emulated broadcast. I'm > saying it would be an advantage for it to use pub/sub but it does not. > You are

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Hi Andrew, On 05/05/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > I will put my hand up and say that this sidestepped the DEP process, and > that's entirely my fault. It was not my intention; I've been working on > this for over two years, and only last year did I go public with my > semi-final design

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Thank you for your comments and I have some brief replies. On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:20:06 PM UTC-4, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mark Lavin > wrote: > > The main gains are (in my opinion): > - The same server process can serve both

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Andrew, I worked very hard to edit the tone of this message and I'm sorry if you felt anything in here was a personal attack. That certainly was not my intent. My natural speaking tendency leans toward hyperbole and I think there may have been places which got away from me here. Best, Mark

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Thank you, Mark, for starting this discussion. I, too, found myself simply accepting that channels was the right way to go, despite having the same questions you do. I realize this shouldn't be, so I've chimed in on some of your comments. > On May 5, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Mark Lavin