On Feb 23, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Pierre Jaury wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 09:17 PM, Glyph wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Christopher Armstrong
>> mailto:ra...@twistedmatrix.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's a reasonable change to make, and I don't foresee any
>>> problems with it, so I think
On 02/22/2013 09:17 PM, Glyph wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Christopher Armstrong
> mailto:ra...@twistedmatrix.com>> wrote:
>
>> I think it's a reasonable change to make, and I don't foresee any
>> problems with it, so I think it's fine to submit a bug about it. But I
>> do question the
On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Christopher Armstrong
wrote:
> I think it's a reasonable change to make, and I don't foresee any problems
> with it, so I think it's fine to submit a bug about it. But I do question the
> architecture that needs to make use of it. I would probably avoid scenarios
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Pierre Jaury wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> As a matter of fact, this is not the case (the first generation of the
> Deferred object will return its actual current state but later
> generations will return `None`). Because a Deferred object generation
> from an inlineCa
Hey everyone,
First of all, I am a french developer mostly dealing with security
matters, I have been a Twisted enthusiast for a couple of years now and
have been hacking around with Twisted for the very last couple of months.
I am aware that Deferred-related classes are very stable nowadays and
