Hi Jonathan,
|--==> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:15:18 +, Jonathan Lange said:
[...]
>>Even those returning deferreds and using AsynchronousDeferredRunTest? I
>>presume so, just asking to be sure.
>>
JL> Yes.
JL> (Also, you don't get sure from asking, you get sure from trying).
True,
Hi Glyph,
|--==> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:20:37 -0500, Glyph said:
[...]
>>Right. At the time it was discouraging because I felt like there were
>>a hundred tests to fix one at a time, then add the deprecation warning
>>and then a year later get to my actual goal of removing the extra
>>i
Hi Jonathan,
|--==> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:12:34 +, Jonathan Lange said:
[...]
>>Would you elaborate on that and explain why you come to prefer it over
>>trial for your new projects?
JL> That's mostly documented here:
JL> http://testtools.readthedocs.org/en/latest/overview.html
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
...
> Beside code organization/design is this the main substantial difference
> between twisted.trial.unittest.TestCase and testtools.testcase.TestCase
> plus AsynchronousDeferredRunTest?
>
> Or put it in a stronger form, if there was a compat
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> |--==> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:12:34 +, Jonathan Lange
> said:
>
> [...]
> >>Would you elaborate on that and explain why you come to prefer it over
> >>trial for your new projects?
>
> JL> That's mostly documented he
|--==> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:50:10 +, Jonathan Lange said:
JL> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
>>Hi Jonathan,
>>
>>|--==> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:12:34 +, Jonathan Lange
said:
>>
>> [...]
>> >>Would you elaborate on that and explain why you come to p
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> |--==> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:50:10 +, Jonathan Lange
> said:
>
> JL> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Free Ekanayaka
> wrote:
> >>Hi Jonathan,
> >>
> >>|--==> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:12:34 +, Jonathan Lange
> said:
> >>
>
Hi there,
what is the most efficient/performant way of doing the following?
I have a short message prepared .. say a string of 100 octets.
I want to push out that _same_ string on 100k connected TCPs (on a server).
==
My thinking was: ideally, the 100 bytes would be transferred to kernel/NIC sp
AFAIK that's not possible in TCP, only in multicast, and the kernel
will make copies of that string no matter what, but I am highly
unknowledgeable in this area.
On 2/10/12, Tobias Oberstein wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> what is the most efficient/performant way of doing the following?
>
> I have a shor
On 10/02/12 16:56, Tobias Oberstein wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> what is the most efficient/performant way of doing the following?
>
> I have a short message prepared .. say a string of 100 octets.
> I want to push out that _same_ string on 100k connected TCPs (on a server).
>
> ==
>
> My thinking was: i
> > what is the most efficient/performant way of doing the following?
> >
> > I have a short message prepared .. say a string of 100 octets.
> > I want to push out that _same_ string on 100k connected TCPs (on a server).
> >
> > ==
> >
> > My thinking was: ideally, the 100 bytes would be transferre
On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 10/02/12 16:56, Tobias Oberstein wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> what is the most efficient/performant way of doing the following?
>>
>> I have a short message prepared .. say a string of 100 octets.
>> I want to push out that _same_ string on 100
I'm working on a SPDY protocol implementation for Twisted. I've been
keeping a hacking log here:
http://icepick.info/2012/02/10/txspdy-day-3-pyopenssl-done-now-python-code/
So far I've gotten the NPN methods added to pyopenssl, and I'm now working
on a protocol that parses the frames.
At the en
13 matches
Mail list logo
