Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 19:17, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
In other words, PyProtocols isn't tightly coupled to a component architecture, but is instead a convenient base for building component architectures.
Perhaps we should be discussing Twisted using PEAK, then? I don't want to use half a component system and implement the other half myself.
Why?
Maybe you can come up with a counterexample, but it seems to me that the benefit of a common protocol system would be lost without the use of a common component model.
This whole *thread* has been about the benefits of using only PyProtocols without PEAK (Not that I'm opposed to using PEAK -- I don't know enough about it yet. I'm just opposed to meaningless arguments :)
Let's take a specific example: you mentioned locating nearby services by interface. peak.config does this with two interfaces: IConfigSource and IConfigKey:
Woah there, sparky! That looks a lot like the earlier documentation I was having trouble with. A brief example, maybe? :)
Yeah, my eyes kinda glazed over on this one, too, since I have no idea what IConfigSource and IConfigKey are. -- Twisted | Christopher Armstrong: International Man of Twistery Radix | Release Manager, Twisted Project ---------+ http://radix.twistedmatrix.com/