Message160815
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
giampaolo.rodola, maker, pitrou, r.david.murray, terry.reedy, vinay.sajip |
| Date |
2012年05月16日.09:18:58 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1337159798.3374.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<1337159704.48.0.403244226478.issue11959@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> Given that asyncore's design allows for a socket map to be passed in
> (at least in part - RDM's comment), ISTM that it should support this
> consistently, and also that smtpd should support this mode of use.
Well, I would argue that asyncore's design is thoroughly broken, and
passing a socket map is a poor kludge to avoid global state; in a
sophisticated event loop, the socket map wouldn't be the only piece of
state to pass around.
(look at twisted's reactors for a comparison) |
|