On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Glyph <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.io> wrote: > > Also, I do really really want the protocol and not the transport. This is > because I want to pass a reference to the protocol around so that later I > can call callRemote on it. That I can also get the transport is mostly just > gravy so that I can return nice things for my fake transport's > getHost/getPeer. > > Except that maybe your protocol is just a BinaryBoxProtocol, and has no > callRemote method. Or maybe it's actually HTTP and feeding things to AMP > after some deserialization pass, like via JSON (aren't you even doing this > already in some other code?). Is there even a "protocol" visible to this > code in that case? > Yep and yep: - I guess I mean IBoxReceiver? The thing with callRemote on it ;) - I'm doing that, and that's what I hope to do again here :) > - Maybe there should be a new API that passes the proto (and actually > means "proto" ;)) > > > I still think that before providing this new mechanism we need *some* way > of declaring that we expect more from "the protocol". > Yep! > I think I have some code up (or will have some code up soon, depending on > when you read this email) that does have sort-of working multiplexed > transports: > > > Cool. > For what it's worth, I hacked together something in docs/examples that works. I'll see what I have to do to get it to work over a browser, and see what I can expose as API :) > -glyph > > _______________________________________________ > 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
