[Python-Dev] Py3k and asyncore/asynchat

Mon Mar 24 22:04:20 CET 2008

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Josiah Carlson <josiah.carlson at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Twisted core has been proposed, but I believe the consensus was that
> it wasn't desirable, generally.
>
I remember only a couple of dissenting voices, and only a small number of
participants. Of the dissenting voices, I do not recall any actual arguments
about undesireability, just misunderstandings of how Twisted actually works.
Getting Twisted core (meaning Deferreds, a simple reactor and the Protocol
class) into the core is still on my TODO list.
I'm also pretty sure that people learn twisted because everyone learns
> twisted. It's one of those buzz-words ;).
>
I think that's quite an unfair assessment, even in jest :) Twisted is well
worth learning to actually use it, as it's a very versatile event loop and
does it best to integrate nicely with other event systems. And including it
in the standard library improves integration with other event loops by
creating a single interface. It's not a matter of dropping it in, though; it
requires some careful structuring to avoid embarrassing situations like we
have with the xml package, but still people to provide their own reactor.
In case you're wondering how the twisted reactor in the stdlib is useful to
people not using Twisted, take a look at what you currently need to do to
combine stdlib modules like urllib and ftplib with event systems like
Tkinter and PyGTK. Not to mention that the Twisted implementations of
various protocols are really quite, quite good -- in many cases quite a lot
better than the stdlib ones. But including those takes yet more time.
-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org>
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me
spread!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20080324/9c3fc60a/attachment-0001.htm