> On Jun 14, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Oliver Palmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > As the subject says, could the CFFI wrappers around the win32 functions that > Twisted needs be a separate project? This came up briefly in > https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/7889 > <https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/7889> so I thought I might pose the > question to a larger audience. > > Generally speaking, the idea of making it a separate project to me seems like > a logical step in many ways. Since the code is not specific to Twisted > keeping it outside of the Twisted project, much like pywin32 is, makes it > easier for contributors and consumers alike to reuse or expand on the cffi > wrapper in the future. I don't think the objective would be to replace all > of pywin32 initially but to provide enough to be usable by the Twisted > project. > > Besides Twisted I know there are some other projects out there that could > benefit from making this a separate project. But before taking this approach > however I'm wondering if this would be reasonable from Twisted's perspective?
I think this would be great. More generally, now that we have support for setuptools extras, I think we might want to consider moving _all_ C/CFFI/Pyrex code outside of Twisted, and making them optional dependencies. In principle, you should be able to use Twisted without a C compiler, it's just that setuptools has no good way to express that. But it does have (via extras) a way to express optional dependencies, and if we distributed all the native bindings and speedups as separate packages, we could ultimately fix <https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/3586 <https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/3586>> this way. -glyph
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list [email protected] http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
