On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com> wrote: > The third quote, from Brian Kernighan, seems to underestimate the > complexity of asynchronous programming in the large - it's probably > not just twice as hard.
Yeah, which is why I recommended a threaded approach to the OP. It won't scale to millions of simultaneous connections... but he's unlikely to have more than half a dozen in testing, and even in production, most games aren't going to run more than a couple hundred players. (A huge server might have more players than that simultaneously logged in, but they'll be running different games. If thread count becomes a problem, fork() to create a game, job done.) Threads are easier to get your head around: this and that happen at the same time. Sometimes it means creating lots of threads to do similar things (one for the GUI, one for this socket, one for that socket, one for the cron handler, etc, etc), but is that really a problem? Probably not. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
