On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 13:11 +0200, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Dylan Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tres Seaver wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > > Chris' ClockServer removes the need for such a thread, by hooking
> > > ZServer's mainloop to generate the "faux" request needed to kick off
> > > async processing. A "crontab" - like schedule can be driven equally
> > > well from ClockScheduler as from a separate thread.
> > So what's wrong with including ClockServer in the core or making it
> > easier to install? (ie not having to put packages in the python path
> > which is hard with some hosting arrangements)
> > And what's the argument against a core scheduler regardless of a clock?
> > Isn't running background tasks a common need amoungst many very
> > different tools and therefore a interstructure issue?
> Myself I'm for having ClockServer in the core, if Chris and others agree.
It's fine with me. We maybe just need to remove the C extension in
it... someone (you?) provided a pure python implementation of what it
does that probably runs just as fast.
I wouldn't be apt include the Scheduler product in the core. I think it
may be a tad too complicated.
The Event product is likely superseded by the Zope 3 event system
included in Five.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -