On 2/8/06, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/7/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > what other reactive socket framework is there that would fit well into > > the standard library ? is twisted really simple enough ? > > Twisted is wonderful, powerful, rich, and very large. Perhaps a small > subset could be carefully extracted that (given suitable volunteers to > maintain it in the future) might fit in the standard library, but [a] > that extraction is not going to be a simple or fast job, and [b] I > suspect that the minimum sensible subset would still be much larger > (and richer / more powerful) than asyncore.
The subject of putting (parts of) Twisted into the standard library comes up once every 6 months or so, at least on our mailing list. For all that I think asyncore is worthless, I'm still against copying Twisted into the stdlib. Or at least I'm not willing to maintain the necessary fork, and I fear the nightmares about versioning that can easily occur when you've got both standard library and third party versions of a project. But, for the record, to the people who argue not to put Twisted into the stdlib because of its size: The parts of it that would actually be applicable (i.e. those that obselete async* in the stdlib) are only a few kilobytes of code. At a quick run of "wc", the parts that support event loops, accurate timed calls, SSL, Unix sockets, TCP, UDP, arbitrary file descriptors, processes, and threads sums up to about 5300 lines of code. asynchat and asyncore are about 1200. -- Twisted | Christopher Armstrong: International Man of Twistery Radix | -- http://radix.twistedmatrix.com | Release Manager, Twisted Project \\\V/// | -- http://twistedmatrix.com |o O| | w----v----w-+ _______________________________________________ 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
