On 04:08 pm, p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
On 18/09/13 17:00, bu...@nehbit.net wrote:
+1 for AMP.
Wow, lots of people using AMP. Maybe I'm missing out on something...
Don't people miss the symmetry of PB? Not to mention you can be lazy
and avoid defining a schema! Or are people using Twisted->Other AMP
connections?
AMP is symmetric in the same way PB is.
I like AMP's explicit schemas because they make maintenance and
documentation easier.
And I am 98% certain more people are using AMP to interoperate with non-
Twisted software than are using PB to interoperate with non-Twisted
software. ;)
Basically, I think PB tries to do too much and does it on a slightly
shaky foundation. It is totally possible to build stuff using PB that
works but in my experience it is a bit easier to do so with AMP and I am
more comfortable with prospects for making AMP cooler in the future due
to the simplicity of its implementation compared to the implementation
of PB (that said, here we are *years* later and I am still waiting for
good AMP support for streaming data - so it's not all roses over here).
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python