Damian Johnson <ata...@torproject.org> writes: > Thanks meejah! Took a peek but they both look pretty old and it's > unclear to me how complete either got. If there's something in > particular you think is worthwhile integrating I'm all ears.
I haven't looked closely enough to know the answer to that ;) but as I understand it had (2 years ago) enough to bootstrap and make circuits. >> For any of these efforts, writing a "Tor protocol library" that >> *doesn't* do any I/O would be the most useful; then other Python tools >> can benefit from the protocol support without being tied to "threads" or >> to a particular async framework. > Actually, this uses a similar pattern as the rest of Stem in that cell > packing/unpacking is independent of the threaded socket. Just as you > could use stem.response for controller message parsing in txtorcon, > you can use stem.client.cell for cell packing/unpacking with a twisted > application too. Interesting, okay! Last time I looked, I had to re-assemble the whole "response" to feed it into stem.response -- so I ended up needing to keep most of the protocol state-machine anyway (i.e. to figure out which bytes constituted "a response"). I should probably look again if this has changed :) The way Hyper/h2 works is it just gets fed bytes and "interesting events" come out (essentially), as I understand it. So, the corresponding thing here would be: set up some Stem 'protocol' object with an "interesting event happend" callback. Then, feed bytes into some single API on this object and it calls the "event happened" callback every time enough bytes have been fed in for a complete parsed response object to be generated. (This is just the one side of the protocol; the other side would be similar) -- meejah _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
