Hi Andrew,
Replying off-list just to say that I totally understand your frustration
here, and I wish I weren't contributing to it :( I hope I'm managing to
speak my mind without being an asshole about it, and I hope you'd tell
me if I failed.
Really glad Jacob stepped up on the DEP; I was thinkin
> On May 6, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Mark Lavin wrote:
>
> Ryan,
>
> Sorry if you felt I was ignoring your reply to focus on the discussion with
> Andrew. You both made a lot of the same points at about the same time but I
> did want to touch on a couple things.
I totally get it. Focus on the Jedi,
Ryan,
Sorry if you felt I was ignoring your reply to focus on the discussion with
Andrew. You both made a lot of the same points at about the same time but I
did want to touch on a couple things.
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:21:59 PM UTC-4, Ryan Hiebert wrote:
>
> Thank you, Mark, for starting
Yes I agree that we do want different things and have different goals.
There is nothing wrong with coming to a state of respectful disagreement.
I'm glad that some of the feedback could be helpful and I hope it can be
incorporated into Channels.
As for a DEP, that would be nice and I'd love to
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Mark Lavin wrote:
> Yes I agree with the value of a standardized way of communicating between
> these processes and I listed that as a highlight of Channels, though it
> quickly shifted into criticism. I think that's where we are crossing paths
> with relation to K
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
>
> I've no desire either to aggravate your RSI or kick you in the teeth! I
> understand the multiple competing pressures here and won't stand in the
> way of a merge into 1.10 sans DEP if that still seems like the best path
> forward to you. It's
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> I think channels, multiple-template-engines, and
> reworked-middleware (and migrations, for that matter) are all
> rethinkings of long-standing core aspects of how Django works, which in
> my mind makes them prime DEP candidates,
>
There seems
Yes I agree with the value of a standardized way of communicating between
these processes and I listed that as a highlight of Channels, though it
quickly shifted into criticism. I think that's where we are crossing paths
with relation to Kombu/AMQP as well. I find the messaging aspect of
Channe
On 05/05/2016 04:37 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> To be honest, I had entirely forgotten the DEP process existed until
> this thread started up; I'm not sure what to blame this on, but as a
> member of the tech board I haven't got an email about approving a DEP
> since last October, so it's been a whi
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 05/05/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> > I will put my hand up and say that this sidestepped the DEP process, and
> > that's entirely my fault. It was not my intention; I've been working on
> > this for over two years, and
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Mark Lavin wrote:
> Thank you for your comments and I have some brief replies.
>
>
> If I'm understanding it correctly, groups are an emulated broadcast. I'm
> saying it would be an advantage for it to use pub/sub but it does not.
>
You are correct; the reason Red
Hi Andrew,
On 05/05/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> I will put my hand up and say that this sidestepped the DEP process, and
> that's entirely my fault. It was not my intention; I've been working on
> this for over two years, and only last year did I go public with my
> semi-final design and
Thank you for your comments and I have some brief replies.
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:20:06 PM UTC-4, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mark Lavin > wrote:
>
> The main gains are (in my opinion):
> - The same server process can serve both HTTP and WebSockets withou
Andrew,
I worked very hard to edit the tone of this message and I'm sorry if you
felt anything in here was a personal attack. That certainly was not my
intent. My natural speaking tendency leans toward hyperbole and I think
there may have been places which got away from me here.
Best,
Mark
O
Thank you, Mark, for starting this discussion. I, too, found myself simply
accepting that channels was the right way to go, despite having the same
questions you do. I realize this shouldn't be, so I've chimed in on some of
your comments.
> On May 5, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Mark Lavin wrote:
>
> [s
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mark Lavin wrote:
> After somewhat hijacking another thread
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/t_zuh9ucSP4/eJ4TlEDMCAAJ
> I thought it was best to start fresh and clearly spell out my feelings
> about the Channels proposal. To start, this discussi
After somewhat hijacking another thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/t_zuh9ucSP4/eJ4TlEDMCAAJ
I thought it was best to start fresh and clearly spell out my feelings
about the Channels proposal. To start, this discussion of “Django needs a
websocket story” reminds me very
17 matches
Mail list logo