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 The Event product is likely superseded by the Zope 3 event system included in Five. - C _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )