Jelly performance factors below expectations.

I am not clear on the significance of this statement.

Not significant, just an observation.  I've made this statement before, backed-off after finding errors on my code, but after fixing I see performance across the bus that still seem slow.  "Seem slow" lacks any scientific backing.  I would be curious to hear use cases for PB/Jelly that went beyond the docs.
Can we say Copyable is the lowest order jelly? The notion that a copy holder can't ask "is my copy good anymore?"  makes it so.  Essentially root says, I'd prefer not to repeat unit of work nor keep track of the resulting copies, here have the original or resulting copy.

Asking whether your copy is good any more is a PB-level task.  Jelly itself is a separate layer which is about getting the right data to the right place, not keeping it updated.

Yes PB level, I guess I'm looking for a convention where 1 does not exist.  In the renewed interest the comments have tended to overlook copyable, or see copyable as being flushed out.
My main issue is a copy-holder calling for a copy to determine is the copy is good anymore.  I know, see cacheable but it's problematic.

"problematic" is passive voice :-).  What are the problems?

Only parroting what I've read on cacheable, haven't delved into yet.
At this point I'm unsure of what jelly actually does well.

Malheureusement, Jelly's main claim to fame is "it's better than pickle".  But with all this renewed interest in PB perhaps we'll get pre-deserialization schema enforcement and type checking, and then it will have some real advantages :).

Agreed.  This is what I looked to Jelly/PB for, having found so much in twisted that simplifies.
who's the JellyCon2014 keynote speaker?

One day we will have a conference - Tx/Rx, of course - and there will be a talk on this.  But first we need several people in the community who wants their contribution to Twisted to be organization and community oriented rather than code ;-).

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Glyph <glyph@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:

On Sep 7, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Kevin Mcintyre <kebin70@gmail.com> wrote:

Jelly performance factors below expectations.

I am not clear on the significance of this statement.

Can we say Copyable is the lowest order jelly? The notion that a copy holder can't ask "is my copy good anymore?"  makes it so.  Essentially root says, I'd prefer not to repeat unit of work nor keep track of the resulting copies, here have the original or resulting copy.

Asking whether your copy is good any more is a PB-level task.  Jelly itself is a separate layer which is about getting the right data to the right place, not keeping it updated.

My main issue is a copy-holder calling for a copy to determine is the copy is good anymore.  I know, see cacheable but it's problematic.

"problematic" is passive voice :-).  What are the problems?

At this point I'm unsure of what jelly actually does well.

Malheureusement, Jelly's main claim to fame is "it's better than pickle".  But with all this renewed interest in PB perhaps we'll get pre-deserialization schema enforcement and type checking, and then it will have some real advantages :).

who's the JellyCon2014 keynote speaker?

One day we will have a conference - Tx/Rx, of course - and there will be a talk on this.  But first we need several people in the community who wants their contribution to Twisted to be organization and community oriented rather than code ;-).

-glyph

_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python