> On the other hand, I have at several points been willing to make the
> "cutover", and for various different reasons, been told it wasn't happening
> until things were closer to "perfect" (for some value of "perfect") than
> they were at the time.
Well, the way the cut-over will eventually happen
Le 1 mars 2013 à 23:27, Glyph a écrit :
>
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Benjamin BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> I was hoping to avoid having to put something like AMP in place, because it
>> looked a bit overkill for my case.
>> I think I actually found a way :-)
>
>
> In what way is it "overkill"?
Le 2 mars 2013 à 04:34, exar...@twistedmatrix.com a écrit :
> On 1 Mar, 09:52 pm, bee...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Thanks for the answer!
>>
>> I was hoping to avoid having to put something like AMP in place,
>> because it looked a bit overkill for my case.
>> I think I actually found a way :-)
>
>
Yes, that looks okay, but that wasn't in your original sample ;-)
I'm on my phone at the moment which isn't great for code review, but it
looks like you only fire one deferred per line?
On Mar 2, 2013 9:50 AM, "Benjamin BERTRAND" wrote:
>
> Le 2 mars 2013 à 04:34, exar...@twistedmatrix.com a écr
On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:18 AM, Tom Prince wrote:
> I've update the buildbot to create a link from the build to the
> generated documentation.
Oh my goodness, Tom. You are like a god of buildbot.
It did not even occur to me to ask for this, as I assumed it would be too
complex. Thanks so much!
On 03/01/2013 10:27 PM, Glyph wrote:
> What is AMP too much of? Memory? CPU? Bandwidth? API complexity?
> Code size? As compared to what?
FWIW, every time (all three of them...) I've looked at AMP I got rapidly
bored and ended up using PB. My use-cases have usually been
Twisted->Twiste
Fair enough, I only use AMP as the external interface (e.g. Javascript
talking to me from a browser).
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 03/01/2013 10:27 PM, Glyph wrote:
>
> > What is AMP too much of? Memory? CPU? Bandwidth? API complexity?
> > Code size? As compa
On Mar 2, 2013, at 3:25 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 03/01/2013 10:27 PM, Glyph wrote:
>
>> What is AMP too much of? Memory? CPU? Bandwidth? API complexity?
>> Code size? As compared to what?
>
> FWIW, every time (all three of them...) I've looked at AMP I got rapidly
> bored and ended
Le 2 mars 2013 à 10:08, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> a écrit :
> Yes, that looks okay, but that wasn't in your original sample ;-)
>
>
Yep, sorry about that.
I was more focused on the ServerFactory and Protocol.
The pcap in a thread comes from the link I mentioned in my first post:
http:
On 03/02/2013 12:19 PM, Glyph wrote:
> I wrote a blog post some time ago explaining why you want static
> declarations, even if your programming language is all nice and dynamic:
Being able to "early drop" bad PDUs is a fine notion, but it's not a
property that comes with zero cost. If you feel
Ah, but that too appears to be missing in the original code ;-)
The stuff you're doing with deferreds there seems a bit strange. In your
example, why not just call sendMessage when you get the packet?
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Benjamin BERTRAND wrote:
>
> Le 2 mars 2013 à 10:08, Laurens
Le 2 mars 2013 à 14:53, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> a écrit :
> Ah, but that too appears to be missing in the original code ;-)
>
> The stuff you're doing with deferreds there seems a bit strange. In your
> example, why not just call sendMessage when you get the packet?
If I had only one
I'm guessing that this is another question that will be solved as soon as I
see the code (perhaps you should put all your code up somewhere); but all I
do know is that all Deferreds buy you is an abstraction for organizing
callbacks; it's not a dispatch mechanism (and if you're using it as one
now,
Le 2 mars 2013 à 15:33, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> a écrit :
> I'm guessing that this is another question that will be solved as soon as I
> see the code (perhaps you should put all your code up somewhere); but all I
> do know is that all Deferreds buy you is an abstraction for organizin
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> AMP would be somewhat more attractive (to me) if it were possible to run
> with the IDL just on the "server" (i.e. callee); this would achieve the
> goal of protocol-level sanity checking, without the cost of having to
> distribute the IDL to th
On 03/02/2013 03:24 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> I don't really understand how this is any easier with PB than with
> AMP, though. With AMP, you "just" need the same command definitions on
> both sides. With PB, you need the exact same Python code versions for
> every class you are sending over
On 03/02/2013 04:36 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> My point is that, for the use-cases *I* have, those limitations have not
> proven to be a problem, so the effort
Sorry, should have been:
...so the effort of deploying a protocol which avoids those limitations
is not warranted.
_
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 03/02/2013 03:24 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
>
>> I don't really understand how this is any easier with PB than with
>> AMP, though. With AMP, you "just" need the same command definitions on
>> both sides. With PB, you need the exact same Py
Benjamin BERTRAND writes:
> Le 2 mars 2013 à 15:33, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> a écrit :
>
>> I'm guessing that this is another question that will be solved as
>> soon as I see the code (perhaps you should put all your code up
>> somewhere); but all I do know is that all Deferreds buy you
On Mar 2, 2013, at 5:46 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> You seemed curious why someone wouldn't use AMP. Personally I have two
> common use-cases:
>
> 1. Communicating between two trusted Twisted processes, for which PB
> is good enough.
There are two reasons that someone might want to consider AM
Hey Glyph,
As usual, I agree with most of what you have to say, but...
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Glyph wrote:
> Deploying a polyglot AMP system is a breeze, even if you have to implement
> AMP from scratch for the other language in order to do it ;).
>
Could you help me write an AMP impl
Le 2 mars 2013 à 19:12, Tom Prince a écrit :
> Benjamin BERTRAND writes:
>
>> Le 2 mars 2013 à 15:33, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> a écrit :
>>
>>> I'm guessing that this is another question that will be solved as
>>> soon as I see the code (perhaps you should put all your code up
>>> so
On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> wrote:
> Hey Glyph,
>
> As usual, I agree with most of what you have to say, but...
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Glyph wrote:
> Deploying a polyglot AMP system is a breeze, even if you have to implement
> AMP from scratch f
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> wrote:
> Could you help me write an AMP implementation in Javascript? It's easy,
> right? ;-)
It can't be harder than writing a PB implementation in JavaScript ;)
--
mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar
__
Bug summary
__
Summary for 2013-02-24 through 2013-03-03
Opened Closed Total Change
Enhancements: 16 15987 +1
Defects: 9 8643 +1
Tasks: 2 2 8
I had 60 busy tcp servers that ran on Python 2.6/Twisted 10.0 (or Twisted
9.0) for over two years with not problems. After I upgraded to Twisted
12.3/Python 2.7, I started getting the errors below (no application code
changes). It took about two days for the first error to appear on a busy
server u
On 05:21 am, matu...@yahoo.com wrote:
>I had 60 busy tcp servers that ran on Python 2.6/Twisted 10.0 (or
>Twisted
>9.0) for over two years with not problems. After I upgraded to Twisted
>12.3/Python 2.7, I started getting the errors below (no application
>code
>changes). It took about two days fo
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Alec Matusis wrote:
> I had 60 busy tcp servers that ran on Python 2.6/Twisted 10.0 (or Twisted
> 9.0) for over two years with not problems. After I upgraded to Twisted
> 12.3/Python 2.7, I started getting the errors below (no application code
> changes). It took a
28 matches
Mail list logo
