On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 1:50 AM, wrote:
> On 02:39 pm, k.kelly.gor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thu Oct 8 20:08:12 EDT 2009, Glyph Lefkowitz
>> wrote:
>>> If old-style classes can be evolved into new-style classes while
>>> somehow following this policy, that would be great.
>> I have some POC co
ension. I think we should start addressing the problem
> incrementally now (especially since it sounded like Kelly was volunteering
> for some work!) rather than put it off for one big chunk when we do a 3k
> migration.
Well yes I am. I am hoping that the discussion will get to a point
where
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2009, at 1:50 AM, James Y Knight wrote:
>
>> On Oct 25, 2009, at 1:38 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>>> # in your application
>>> class Application(object, Library): pass
>>
>> Maybe the answer "why not" is obvious and I should alre
On Thu Oct 8 20:08:12 EDT 2009, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Mark Visser wrote:
>
> > I've been bitten a couple times by twisted's use of old-style classes.
> > Now that Jython is finally off the 2.2 branch, is there any real reason
> > to stay backwards compatible?
>
Hi,
Twisted is a framework for event driven applications. Typically client-
server architectures can be implemented with Twisted. Existing servers and
clients exist for a long list of protocols and communication devices
including HTTP, SSH, and notably for my purpose, IMAP and UNIX sockets. It
