Message85226
| Author | gvanrossum |
|---|---|
| Recipients | akuchling, djarb, facundobatista, forest, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, intgr, j1m, jafo, josiahcarlson, kevinwatters, markb, mcdonc, stutzbach, tseaver |
| Date | 2009-04-02.17:26:58 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.0039138426 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <ca471dc20904021026h45da4ea3hb9f9b63f9afbfe19@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1238684586.65.0.181916403445.issue1641@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
[Guido] >> Looking back, I think Zope and Medusa should have adopted and evolved >> their own copy of asynchat a long time ago... [Jim] > This statement is puzzling. No big deal, but I'm curious why you say > this. ISTR that Zope has or had significant monkeypatches to at least one of asyncore/asynchat. The resulting coupling between Zope and asyn* has meant that the de-facto API of asyn* was much more than the documented API. IMO that's a sign of a poorly designed API (in asyn*). If Zope had had its own copy of asyn* (under a different name of course) that relied only on lower-level APIs (sockets and select), it could have evolved that copy directly without the need for monkeypatching. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2009-04-02 17:27:01 | gvanrossum | set | recipients: + gvanrossum, akuchling, facundobatista, jafo, josiahcarlson, tseaver, forest, giampaolo.rodola, kevinwatters, djarb, stutzbach, markb, intgr, mcdonc, j1m |
| 2009-04-02 17:26:59 | gvanrossum | link | issue1641 messages |
| 2009-04-02 17:26:58 | gvanrossum | create | |