On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Josiah Carlson
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > I haven't really had time to update the tests/documentation, but
> > again, I wasn't experiencing any strange test failures with
>
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Josiah Carlson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I haven't really had time to update the tests/documentation, but
> again, I wasn't experiencing any strange test failures with
> asyncore/asynchat, nor have I been able to find the buildbot failures
> that you are re
(sorry for top posting)
I haven't really had time to update the tests/documentation, but
again, I wasn't experiencing any strange test failures with
asyncore/asynchat, nor have I been able to find the buildbot failures
that you are referring to. Could someone please link the failures
that are not
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any reason this was sent just to me and not the list?
Because gmail only replies to the sender by default. I need to
remember to cc python-dev when I reply (I used the same email client
for 8 1/2 years, remembering the qu
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 16:36, "Giampaolo Rodola'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, I'll try to take a look at all asyncore/chat reports and try to
> > summarize them by splitting patches which solve bugs and patches which
> >
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 03:51:56PM -0700, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> reasonable question; 2.6 alpha 1 has been released. It's a question
> as to whether someone with commit access can or will commit the patch
> as posted, run the tests to verify that they aren't broken, and
> perhaps actually look at
Let us not get side-tracked in this discussion. Whether or not to
include any portion of Twisted into Python 2.6 is well past being a
reasonable question; 2.6 alpha 1 has been released. It's a question
as to whether someone with commit access can or will commit the patch
as posted, run the tests
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Twisted may be one of the best (if not *the* best) ways of writing
> > concurrent programs today, but it doesn't need to be in the stdlib fo
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:04:20PM +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> 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
Weren't some of those dissenting voices the Twisted developers, though?
--amk
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Josiah Carlson <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Twisted core has been proposed, but I believe the con
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Twisted core has been proposed, but I believe the consensus was that
> > it wasn't desirable, generally.
> >
>
> I remember only a couple o
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
I'm going to refresh this discussion since it seems no decisions are
still taken.
Any chance to see a commit finally done?
--- Giampaolo
http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
As far as I can tell, the asyncore.py, asynchat.py, and updated
test_asyncore.py are good. I have been using earlier variants in my
own projects (prior to their updating to pass the test suite) for
quite a few months now. The updated modules provide better
performance, features, and support for r
I've discussed a lot with Josiah via e-mail and I provided an updated
version of the patch proposed in bug #1736190 including a fix for the
two issues raised by me in the bug report.
The update has been needed also because the original patch has been
out-dated by some commits after r53734 involving
Bill Janssen wrote:
> I think we should just replace the current "loop" with this (and add
> the "schedule" function). Then other folks won't have to figure out
> how the module works and write their own loop.
Having beaten my way down this road of broken glass, I would like args
and kwargs if y
On 15 Feb, 21:36, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should just replace the current "loop" with this (and add
> the "schedule" function). Then other folks won't have to figure out
> how the module works and write their own loop. I'll be happy to update
> the documentation to do
I think we should just replace the current "loop" with this (and add
the "schedule" function). Then other folks won't have to figure out
how the module works and write their own loop. I'll be happy to update
the documentation to document it.
Bill
> Twisted core has been proposed, but I believe
Twisted core has been proposed, but I believe the consensus was that
it wasn't desirable, generally.
I'm also pretty sure that people learn twisted because everyone learns
twisted. It's one of those buzz-words ;).
As for task scheduling, I believe it was something like...
import asyncore
import
On 15 Feb, 03:24, "Josiah Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I stated 2+ and 6+ months ago, the patches I submitted 9+ months
> ago work (I've been using them in my own projects without issue). The
> only issue with the bugfix/rearrangement that I last heard about with
> regards to the 2.x
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 09:24:14AM -0500, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 06:24:04PM -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > 1.a. Figure out what the hell is up with OOB data, how to handle it,
> > and stop making it use handle_expt().
>
> Does OOB data actually need to be supported? For
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 06:24:04PM -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> 1.a. Figure out what the hell is up with OOB data, how to handle it,
> and stop making it use handle_expt().
Does OOB data actually need to be supported? For a long time TCP
implementations usually had buggy OOB implementations bec
Hey everyone,
Sorry I haven't been available for this recently, I've been working
far too much (10-14 hours/day, 6 days/week, since November) to really
do any "fun" programming. Also, sorry for top-posting.
As I stated 2+ and 6+ months ago, the patches I submitted 9+ months
ago work (I've been u
On 14 Feb, 16:36, "Giampaolo Rodola'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I'll try to take a look at all asyncore/chat reports and try to
> summarize them by splitting patches which solve bugs and patches which
> add enhancements or functionalities.
>
> On 14 Feb, 16:12, "Facundo Batista" <[EMAIL PROT
First of all, you're conflating my two possible patches.
One patch just addresses the problem of strings and bytes, as GvR
asked me to do, and adds an 8-line class called iterator_producer that
adapts iterators into producers. The patch doesn't change how the
module works at all, and iterator_prod
Ok, I'll try to take a look at all asyncore/chat reports and try to
summarize them by splitting patches which solve bugs and patches which
add enhancements or functionalities.
On 14 Feb, 16:12, "Facundo Batista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/14, Giampaolo Rodola' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
2008/2/14, Giampaolo Rodola' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> asyncore and asynchat are in a difficult position right now since a
> lot of patches for both modules are pending and no decisions are
> taken.
> In detail I'm talking about patches 1519, 1541, 2073 and 1736190 which
> is the most important o
(wrong quoting: obvioulsly I was talking to Daniel)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
asyncore and asynchat are in a difficult position right now since a
lot of patches for both modules are pending and no decisions are
taken.
In detail I'm talking about patches 1519, 1541, 2073 and 1736190 which
is the most important one since it includes a lot of fixes for other
reported issues (e.
They applied when posted them, but subsequent patches seem to have
broken them. I've now posted updated patches that apply cleanly
against revision 60780.
On Feb 13, 2008 6:52 PM, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a big patch, but I'll try applying it to the current py3k branch
> -- d
It's a big patch, but I'll try applying it to the current py3k branch
-- does it apply? -- and try a few things with it. I'm concerned
about how well it behaves with things like Medusa (which probably
needs its own py3k update).
Bill
___
Python-Dev mail
A while back, I volunteered to update asyncore and asynchat for py3k.
I posted a patch, and in response to feedback posted a more
complicated patch+modification.
Both versions have been languishing at
http://bugs.python.org/issue1563 for a couple of months now without
any further feedback or actio
32 matches
Mail list logo
