On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 13:11 +0200, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Dylan Jay  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tres Seaver wrote:
> > > 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The Event product is likely superseded by the Zope 3 event system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.

- C

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to