Re: MOSS Award to Django

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Samuel Bishop wrote: > Once again I have to thank you for taking the time to keep replying. These > longer explanations are proving very helpful (at least to me) in > understanding Django Channels. :-) > > I definitely understand the

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Once again I have to thank you for taking the time to keep replying. These longer explanations are proving very helpful (at least to me) in understanding Django Channels. :-) I definitely understand the compatibility reasons, I'm also pleased to see that signalling via a channel will be as

Re: MOSS Award to Django

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Samuel Bishop wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Thanks for the detailed response. I'm glad to hear you have tried a few > different ways to implement this, and having read through your reply, and > the channels docs again, I have more questions :-) >

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Hi Andrew, Thanks for the detailed response. I'm glad to hear you have tried a few different ways to implement this, and having read through your reply, and the channels docs again, I have more questions :-) Your point about asynchronous code introducing needless complexity is very well

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Hi Samuel, You'll notice if you look carefully that I avoid saying "async" almost anywhere in the Channels announcements or documentation, and when I do, it's qualified very carefully. Channels makes Django event-driven, but it does not provide full "in-process" async like Twisted, asyncio, or

Re: MOSS Award to Django

I'm uncertain how popular the suggestion will be but ... are "channels" the right solution to our async/concurrency problems? ( I'm all for django-channels the project and the work to solve these issues) All the talk of channels, workers, queues and back ends in the explanations I'm reading as

Re: MOSS Award to Django

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Markus Holtermann > wrote: >> >> >> >If I get it right -- Curtis' description is spot-on; some tasks will >> >still >> >need Celery, Channels will take care

Re: MOSS Award to Django

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Markus Holtermann wrote: > > >If I get it right -- Curtis' description is spot-on; some tasks will > >still > >need Celery, Channels will take care of many others. > > For me it's more a question of "is a client directly involved". > I

Re: MOSS Award to Django

On December 16, 2015 6:01:58 PM GMT+10:30, Shai Berger wrote: >On Wednesday 16 December 2015 08:08:59 Markus Holtermann wrote: >> From my point of view the major non-functional difference is the >> interaction with a client in *some way*. While a celery task runs >without >>

Re: MOSS Award to Django

On Wednesday 16 December 2015 08:08:59 Markus Holtermann wrote: > From my point of view the major non-functional difference is the > interaction with a client in *some way*. While a celery task runs without > any form of client, a channels method would mostly do that. Picture the > following

Re: MOSS Award to Django

>From my point of view the major non-functional difference is the interaction >with a client in *some way*. While a celery task runs without any form of >client, a channels method would mostly do that. Picture the following example: A user uploads an image. This could happen through the common

Re: MOSS Award to Django

On 16/12/15 12:05, Ben Liyanage wrote: And, beyond that, there are plenty of non-critical tasks that applications could easily offload until after a response has been sent - like saving things into a cache or thumbnailing newly-uploaded images.

Re: MOSS Award to Django

> > And, beyond that, there are plenty of non-critical tasks that applications > could easily offload until after a response has been sent - like saving > things into a cache or thumbnailing newly-uploaded images. > http://channels.readthedocs.org/en/latest/concepts.html#concepts I mean this

Re: MOSS Award to Django

On Wednesday 16 December 2015 01:07:16 Ben Liyanage wrote: > > I get that the goal of this is for asynchronous web requests, but if it's > generalized right it seems like it could cover doing any kind of work > without the pressure of completing a web transaction in a timely fashion. > No,

Re: MOSS Award to Django

So a channel must result in a response to a browser? It seems both from the config (routing things into functions, or queues) and the underlying tech (using redis or whatever) sounds very similar to celery. >From the docs: - Interface servers, which communicate between Django and the outside

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Hi Ben, Celery and channels don’t tackle the same problem. Celery is an asynchronous task queue. It is designed perform expensive work after responding to a HTTP request. At that point there is no possible communication with the browser. Channels is an asynchronous message framework. It

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Hey, Channels sounds a lot like celery (or celery sounds like part of channels). Is that a fair read? Looking for tighter REST integration either way. Thanks, -Ben On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 10:19:00 AM UTC-8, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > For those who haven't seen,

Re: MOSS Award to Django

> Le 12 déc. 2015 à 23:10, Mitar a écrit : > > I would be > completely OK by supporting Websockets now on the transport level, but > the API level should understand and support backpressure. Hello Mitar, Yes, I fully agree with this way to frame the topic. I'm don't know how

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Hi! On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > Unless I missed something, channels aren’t about websockets. They add > asynchronous processing capabilities to Django. They aim at being compatible > with any bidirectional protocol. Yes, but

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Hello, Unless I missed something, channels aren’t about websockets. They add asynchronous processing capabilities to Django. They aim at being compatible with any bidirectional protocol. Django should support common protocols out of the box and document a public API for third-party projects

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Hi! This is really awesome news! Can I suggest to use WebRTC data channel instead of Websockets? I think we should make a paradigm shift and move to use WebRTC instead of Websockets. This allows many interesting properties: * connections can be based on SCTP * have multi-path routing * you can

Re: MOSS Award to Django

great!!! On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Asif Saifuddin wrote: > Awesome awesome !!! awesome!!! :D :D > > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:19:00 AM UTC+6, Andrew Godwin wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> For those who haven't seen, Mozilla has awarded $150,000 to

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Hi, Just saying congrats to people involved and the community. Great step for Django! El viernes, 11 de diciembre de 2015, 19:19:00 (UTC+1), Andrew Godwin escribió: > > Hi everyone, > > For those who haven't seen, Mozilla has awarded $150,000 to Django for > work on Channels and

Re: MOSS Award to Django

Awesome awesome !!! awesome!!! :D :D On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:19:00 AM UTC+6, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > For those who haven't seen, Mozilla has awarded $150,000 to Django for > work on Channels and request/response improvements lifted from REST > Framework. More

MOSS Award to Django

Hi everyone, For those who haven't seen, Mozilla has awarded $150,000 to Django for work on Channels and request/response improvements lifted from REST Framework. More in the blog post here: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2015/dec/11/django-awarded-moss-grant/ I'll be coordinating this