On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 03:10:11AM -0500, Jonathan Simms wrote:

Is it possible (or even useful) to have a protocol which expects the factory which builds it to have a specific interface? (as the protocol has a .factory attribute and therefore can access methods and attributes on it's factory)

or must all twisted.protocols be able to work with internet.protocol.Factory() off-the-shelf?

Nope, it's perfectly fine to have a factory tightly bound to the protocol. The reason that they're separate objects isn't for separation of knowledge, but for having a 1-N relationship (N protocol instances (i.e., connections) per factory). -- Twisted | Christopher Armstrong: International Man of Twistery Radix | Release Manager, Twisted Project ---------+ http://radix.twistedmatrix.com/

On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 03:10:11AM -0500, Jonathan Simms wrote:

Is it possible (or even useful) to have a protocol which expects the factory which builds it to have a specific interface? (as the protocol has a .factory attribute and therefore can access methods and attributes on it's factory)

or must all twisted.protocols be able to work with internet.protocol.Factory() off-the-shelf?

Nope, it's perfectly fine to have a factory tightly bound to the protocol. The reason that they're separate objects isn't for separation of knowledge, but for having a 1-N relationship (N protocol instances (i.e., connections) per factory). -- Twisted | Christopher Armstrong: International Man of Twistery Radix | Release Manager, Twisted Project ---------+ http://radix.twistedmatrix.com/