Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] [ann] MacPythonOSA 0.1.0

2005-04-12 Thread has
Bob wrote: >>>Python over IPC is going to be way faster than AppleScript ever was. >> >>Python+aem's actually a bit slower than AppleScript given most of the data >>conversion and event packing/unpacking is done in Python rather than C. > >Yes, the brokering of messages to and from an application

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] [ann] MacPythonOSA 0.1.0

2005-04-11 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Apr 11, 2005, at 12:15 PM, has wrote: Bob wrote: - OSA uses Component Manager - not Apple events - to communicate with language components, so the MacPythonOSA component would need to handle each OSA call, stuff its arguments into an IPC message, send the message to the script daemon to proce

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] [ann] MacPythonOSA 0.1.0

2005-04-11 Thread has
Bob wrote: >>- OSA uses Component Manager - not Apple events - to communicate with >>language components, so the MacPythonOSA component would need to handle each >>OSA call, stuff its arguments into an IPC message, send the message to the >>script daemon to process and wait for its response. (T

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] [ann] MacPythonOSA 0.1.0

2005-04-11 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Apr 11, 2005, at 5:06 AM, has wrote: Bob wrote: A multi-process model would be a lot more robust overall. [...] If you [...] communicate with existing Python interpreters exclusively, it would probably be much better overall (though much more work). Yep, removing Python from the component wou

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] [ann] MacPythonOSA 0.1.0

2005-04-11 Thread has
Bob wrote: >>>A multi-process model would be a lot more robust overall. [...] If you [...] >>>communicate with existing Python interpreters exclusively, it would probably >>>be much better overall (though much more work). >> >>Yep, removing Python from the component would require quite a lot mor

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] [ann] MacPythonOSA 0.1.0

2005-04-10 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Apr 10, 2005, at 3:53 PM, has wrote: A multi-process model would be a lot more robust overall. Linking to Python is problematic if there's even a remote possibility the process might also be using a Python interpreter. If you remove the need for that and communicate with existing Python int

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] [ann] MacPythonOSA 0.1.0

2005-04-10 Thread has
Bob Ippolito wrote: >In the implementation, you do this: > >#define MAX_CSTRING_PATH_SIZE 32768 /* Because 32KB should be enough for >anyone... */ > >32KB is *way* oversized and could actually cause a problem because the default >stack size on Mac OS X is rather small. The right way is to just

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] [ann] MacPythonOSA 0.1.0

2005-04-10 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Apr 10, 2005, at 11:40 AM, has wrote: Just a quick heads-up on my latest venture into the wild and wonderful world of the Open Scripting Architecture, MacPythonOSA: .. I will definitely need expert advice on the finer points of OSA component implementation in order to complete it, so if someon