Message183764
| Author | giampaolo.rodola |
|---|---|
| Recipients | akuchling, djarb, facundobatista, forest, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, intgr, j1m, jafo, josiahcarlson, kevinwatters, mark.dickinson, markb, mcdonc, pitrou, python-dev, r.david.murray, stutzbach, terry.reedy, tseaver |
| Date | 2013-03-08.20:46:22 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1362775582.96.0.308269539127.issue1641@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I'm not sure how many users asyncore has out there nowadays, but if it has to stay in the stdlib then I see some value in adding a scheduler to it because it is an essential component. If this is still desirable I can restart working on a patch, although I'll have to go through some of the messages posted earlier in this topic and figure how's best to proceed: whether reusing sched.py or write a separate scheduler in asyncore.py. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-03-08 20:46:23 | giampaolo.rodola | set | recipients: + giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, akuchling, terry.reedy, facundobatista, jafo, josiahcarlson, tseaver, mark.dickinson, pitrou, forest, kevinwatters, djarb, stutzbach, markb, r.david.murray, intgr, mcdonc, j1m, python-dev |
| 2013-03-08 20:46:22 | giampaolo.rodola | set | messageid: <1362775582.96.0.308269539127.issue1641@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-03-08 20:46:22 | giampaolo.rodola | link | issue1641 messages |
| 2013-03-08 20:46:22 | giampaolo.rodola | create | |