On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Johannes Erdfelt <johan...@erdfelt.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012, Armando Migliaccio <armando.migliac...@eu.citrix.com> > wrote: >> I agree, but then the whole assumption of adopting eventlet to simplify >> the programming model is hindered by the fact that one has to think >> harder to what is doing...Nova could've kept Twisted for that matter. >> The programming model would have been harder, but at least it would >> have been cleaner and free from icky patching (that's my own opinion >> anyway). > > Twisted has a much harder programming model with the same blocking > problem that eventlet has.
Like so many things that are aesthetic in nature, the statement above is misleading. Using a callback, event-based, deferred/promise oriented system is hard for *some*. It is far, far easier for others (myself included). It's a matter of perception and personal preference. It may be apropos to mention that Guido van Rossum himself has stated that he shares the same view of concurrent programming in Python as Glyph (the founder of Twisted): https://plus.google.com/115212051037621986145/posts/a9SqS7faVWC Glyph's post, if you can't see that G+ link: http://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2012/01/concurrency-spectrum-from-callbacks-to.html One thing to keep in mind is that with Twisted, you always have the option of deferring to a thread for operations are not async-friendly. d _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
