On 11/15/2015 09:07 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Itamar Turner-Trauring
wrote:
On 11/13/2015 07:45 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
1) The Twisted project has already experimentally demonstrated the
imprudence of an approach that massively breaks backwards compatibility
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Itamar Turner-Trauring
wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 07:45 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1) The Twisted project has already experimentally demonstrated the
>> imprudence of an approach that massively breaks backwards compatibility with
>> old APIs (even if it does
On 11/13/2015 07:45 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
1) The Twisted project has already experimentally demonstrated the
imprudence of an approach that massively breaks backwards
compatibility with old APIs (even if it does this in concordance with
the compatibility policy, by adding a bunch of ne
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 at 12:46 Cory Benfield wrote:
> However, this may not work: in particular, some of the other classes in
> twisted.web may know altogether too much about HTTP/1.X: in particular, if
> they have the nerve to write directly to a transport we’ve got a real
> problem with this appr
> On 12 Nov 2015, at 06:04, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
> Creating this dependency loop (twisted->txh2->(twisted->txh2->..., h2)) seems
> potentially problematic, and maybe more trouble than it's worth in terms of
> factoring things out. An IProtocol implementation is literally three methods
> - m
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 1:02 AM, Cory Benfield wrote:
>
> All,
>
> With the work on #7860 nearly done,
_Actually_ done, now.
> Twisted should be in a good place to have a HTTP/2 implementation. There’s
> currently a Trac ticket (#7460) for adding HTTP/2 support to twisted.web,
> which is obvio
