Paul Rubin wrote:
Laszlo Zsolt Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But how can I transfer pure python objects otherwise? Pyro also uses
Pickle and it also transfers bytecode.
Pyro in the past used pickle in an insecure way. I'd heard it had
been fixed and I didn't realize it still uses
Laszlo Zsolt Nagy wrote:
Mobile objects. Clients and servers can pass objects around - even when
the server has never known them before. Pyro will then automatically
transfer the needed Python bytecode.
I believe that using cPickle and transferring data (but not the code) is
still more
Try Pyro http://pyro.sourceforge.net
before rolling your own Python-specific protocol.
You are right. I wanted to use pyro before, because it is well tested
and it has nice features.
Unfortunately, it is not good for me. :-(
I already have my own classes. My objects are in object ownership
Laszlo Zsolt Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I already have my own classes. My objects are in object ownership
trees, and they are referencing to each other (weakly and
strongly). These classes have their own streaming methods, and they
can be pickled safely.
Standard warning: if you're
Paul Rubin wrote:
Laszlo Zsolt Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I already have my own classes. My objects are in object ownership
trees, and they are referencing to each other (weakly and
strongly). These classes have their own streaming methods, and they
can be pickled safely.
Standard
Laszlo Zsolt Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But how can I transfer pure python objects otherwise? Pyro also uses
Pickle and it also transfers bytecode.
Pyro in the past used pickle in an insecure way. I'd heard it had
been fixed and I didn't realize it still uses pickle.
I read somewhere
Tom Anderson wrote:
I think to be effective, I need to use TCP_NODELAY, and manually
buffered transfers.
Why?
Because of the big delays when sending small messages (size 1500 bytes).
Personally, i'd steer clear of doing it like this, and try to use an
existing, language-neutral
Il 2005-12-12, Laszlo Zsolt Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
Hello,
I would like to develop a new network protocol, where the server and the
clients are Python programs.
You should use Twisted for this:
Writing clients
Il 2005-12-13, Laszlo Zsolt Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
I need to send Python objects too. They are too elaborate to convert
them to XML. (They are using cyclic weak references and other Python
specific stuff.) I can be sure that on both sides, there are Python
programs. Is there any
Laszlo Zsolt Nagy wrote:
I need to send Python objects too. They are too elaborate to convert
them to XML. (They are using cyclic weak references and other Python
specific stuff.) I can be sure that on both sides, there are Python
programs. Is there any advantage in using XML if I already
Hello,
I would like to develop a new network protocol, where the server and the
clients are Python programs.
I think to be effective, I need to use TCP_NODELAY, and manually
buffered transfers.
I would like to create a general messaging object that has methods like
sendinteger
recvinteger
Am I on the right way to develop a new protocol?
Are there any common mistakes that programmers do?
Is there a howto where I can read more about this?
If you _must_ develop your own protocol, use at least twisted. But I'd
go for an existing solutions out there - namely pyro. No need to invent
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Laszlo Zsolt Nagy wrote:
I think to be effective, I need to use TCP_NODELAY, and manually
buffered transfers.
Why?
I would like to create a general messaging object that has methods like
sendinteger
recvinteger
sendstring
recvstring
Okay. So you're really
13 matches
Mail list logo
