Tom also sent me an email outside of this thread. Here is my post as I have nothing against twisted, just with the usage of it in libcloud.
I have nothing against twisted. I use it on a day to day basis in my work along with the OpenStack project. My concerns are using it in libcloud as Twisted is not lightweight. My current usage of libcloud is 2 fold. Embedded into c++ via the python interpreter and in a python module that is used on demand in an application server written on top of Facebookâs Tornado server for libevent based async. To add the requirement of twisted on an app like mine would just add to the memory foot print and when working in a libevent spawned thread pool of 12-48 threads or more at a time can be a downfall of my usage of libcloud. I can see many people that run large scale usages of libcloud running into the same issue. Thank You, Philip Schwartz Software Engineering LexisNexis RS O - 561 999 4472 C - 954 290 4024 -----Original Message----- From: Jed Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [libcloud] libcloud roadmap and plans for the future On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Paul Querna <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right now this just feels like witch burning of Twisted Python Tom mailed me off-list to ask me the same thing, so I'll clarify publicly: I can't witch hunt something I've never used, I can merely resist a dependency as (perceivably) heavy as Twisted. I resisted M2Crypto for the single purpose we needed it for, and I will continue to resist any added dependencies that don't benefit the library as a whole. -- Jed Smith [email protected] This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
