My reasons are simpler: PB expects me to build my application to suit it, whereas AMP is small enough to insert into an existing application. It does one single thing and does it well. Caveat emptor, though, I'm still a Twisted newbie—I do understand AMP, but PB is right now way, way over my head.
On September 18, 2013 at 12:38:04 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com (exar...@twistedmatrix.com) wrote: 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
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
