On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 04:53:54 -0400, Stephen Waterbury <waterbug@pangalactic.us> wrote:
glyph@divmod.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:33:11 -0400, Stephen Waterbury <waterbug@pangalactic.us> wrote:
In every other toolkit Twisted supports,
... of which there's really only *one* (GTK)
Fair enough. I meant to say that the way Twisted apps are designed is to treat all events as events. This would require writing extra glue code for certain tyes of events.
Okay. I'm willing to do without that.
In that case, more power to you :)
I think *that* is the real problem ... not technical, just interest from the right people. I've waited enough years (about 5) that I've given up on that.
I've done a lot of waiting too. Now I'm starting with the yelling and hollering, see if that strategy works better :).
I completely agree that it should not be part of Twisted at all ... but if I succeed with it, I'll certainly document what I do.
Sounds great to me.
One major reason I'd like a WX reactor to continue to exist in some form is OSAF's usage of Twisted and WX. They have a similarly baroque model for handing data back and forth between Twisted code and GUI code, ...
... and everything else (sorry, couldn't resist ;) ...
Heh. Let's just keep it straight on the record - *I* didn't say it! :-)
... hmmm ... I've been on all the OSAF Chandler/Scooby/Cosmo lists since April (and that's a lot of freakin' mail ;), and not *once* in that interval has "twisted" occurred in the subject line of a message, and no substantive discussion of it in the bodies either.
Yeah, I don't think that this is really a high priority issue for them. Their application works fine in its current state, and they have a LOT of programmers working on it. A change to the architecture at this point would be so expensive that any other benefits which might come along with it wouldn't be worth it.
I know about their zanshin twisted-based framework for WebDAV/CalDAV, and that it's used in their Sharing architecture, which is used by the Chandler wx GUI, but I just updated my chandler svn checkout, and I counted 17 occurrences of the zanshin "blockUntil" function in the Sharing.py module ... if it's so clean, how come they need those?
I was just trying to be nice :-P.
(In zanshin's docs, "blockUntil" is billed as "for test purposes" ... ;)
Oh yeah, I remember that "test" function... heh heh. I wish them much luck in the 5-year 1000-man project it takes to remove it.
Well, yeah, but I don't think OSAF has the resources to put into it either, and Robin *works* for OSAF.
I just don't think it's a relevant issue for them. They're not even using the code I'm talking about removing.
As if there's going to be some other "tested, robust integration support" ... nothing on the horizon that I can see (and as I say, I've been watching for a long time).
Understandable...
Process spawning! Rusty code! Spawning threads, *and* blocking! My, you do paint a rosy picture. All your handwaving and FUD makes me want to try it, because it's probably quicker and easier than discussing it. But thanks for the warnings, anyway! ;)
What can I say? Everything is completely terrible. Still, good luck trying to make that work; let us know how it goes.