On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 04:04:25PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm a big fan of using IProtocol for things like this, so that existing > code can be used to parse the request data. I might buy the argument that > the absence of a reasonable "transport.write()" would be a reason to have a > distinct interface, but there can and should still be a trivial explicit > adapter from IProtocol to this new interface.
I like your idea of using an existing interface (IProtocol) much more than the idea of creating a brand new interface from scratch. > (Please nobody ever actually name a method "someMoreRequestDataReceived". > I would cry.) I would cry with you. -- Andrew McNabb http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/ PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868
pgp5B95AD5Qvy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Twisted-web mailing list [email protected] http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-web
