With some well directed I got Manhole running in my server. When I run the manhole GUI and login I get back the following error message: Invalid Type Byte '\xc4' I've included the log window contents if anyone can offer a clue on what I am doing wrong. Thanks, Chaz.

From inside the log window I see:

2006/06/15 19:27 EDT [-] Log opened. 2006/06/15 19:27 EDT [-] /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/manhole/ui/gtk2manhole.py:160: gtk.GtkDeprecationWarning: gtk.idle_add is deprecated, use gobject.idle_add instead 2006/06/15 19:27 EDT [-] Starting factory 2006/06/15 19:27 EDT [-] /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/spread/ui/gtk2util.py:156: exceptions.DeprecationWarning: Deferred.setTimeout is deprecated. Look for timeout support specific to the API you are using instead. 2006/06/15 19:27 EDT [Broker,client] Error In < to ('localhost', 2204) at 2ab335e2e350> 2006/06/15 19:27 EDT [Broker,client] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/python/log.py", line 53, in callWithLogger return callWithContext({"system": lp}, func, *args, **kw) File "/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/python/log.py", line 38, in callWithContext return context.call({ILogContext: newCtx}, func, *args, **kw) File "/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/python/context.py", line 59, in callWithContext return self.currentContext().callWithContext(ctx, func, *args, **kw) File "/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/python/context.py", line 37, in callWithContext return func(*args,**kw) --- <exception caught here> --- File "/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/internet/gtk2reactor.py", line 189, in _doReadOrWrite why = source.doRead() File "/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/internet/tcp.py", line 348, in doRead return self.protocol.dataReceived(data) File "/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/spread/banana.py", line 181, in dataReceived raise NotImplementedError(("Invalid Type Byte %r" % (typebyte,))) exceptions.NotImplementedError: Invalid Type Byte '\xc4' 2006/06/15 19:27 EDT [Broker,client] Stopping factory Login FAILED User aborted connection: User hit Cancel..

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 05:54:00 -0500, Chaz. wrote:

I am just about to embark on a SOAP interface to my services. I enjoy using Twisted and would love to continue using it with SOAP. I have used ZSI before in a standalone product but don't see much about marrying the two: twisted and ZSI.

That's because SOAP and company suck. There is always, always, *always* a better way to accomplish a task than using SOAP. I've ranted about this topic before in another thread, to no avail, and I doubt I'll change your mind either, but someone needs to speak out against this nonsense.

I am sure there is someone out there that has done it, and wonder how to do it? Are there any examples yet?

Check out PyGridWare; they've integrated ZSI with twisted for you. Again, SOAP is a pure waste of time and effort, so please consider exploring the other options available to you, before committing to SOAP. L. Daniel Burr

Right now I support XML-RPC but people have clamored for SOAP, so SOAP it is as well. Personally I think sending stuff in ASCII text is silly, but it is out there today as (a more or less) standard. Chaz Thomas Jacob wrote:

...

That's because SOAP and company suck. There is always, always, *always* a better way to accomplish a task than using SOAP. I've ranted about this topic before in another thread, to no avail, and I doubt I'll change your mind either, but someone needs to speak out against this nonsense.

Curious, what would you use if you needed a general remote programming interface built using python, where you can simply upload new python codelets, that should be accessible not just from python but from any major Windows and Unix PL, where you need complex types, and where you wouldn't know what kind of tasks you'll be solving with it in a couple of years.

Corba? XML-RPC?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Chaz. wrote:

I am just about to embark on a SOAP interface to my services. I enjoy using Twisted and would love to continue using it with SOAP. I have used ZSI before in a standalone product but don't see much about marrying the two: twisted and ZSI.

I am sure there is someone out there that has done it, and wonder how to do it? Are there any examples yet?

The latest versions of ZSI (in subversion) incorporate "Twisted web client" support for SOAP. This means you can start a twisted reactor and do asynchronous SOAP requests and get deferreds returned. Also, ZSI provides a WSResource you can add to a Site, very easy to make web services. Another poster mentioned pyGridWare. pyGridWare is nice in that it includes an extra script, 'wsdl2web', which will create a .tac file and a WSResource file (you still have to fill in the web service implementation). Dave

On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 10:43 -0400, washort@twistedmatrix.com wrote:

On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:19:58PM +0200, Thomas Jacob wrote:

...

Curious, what would you use if you needed a general remote programming interface built using python, where you can simply upload new python codelets, that should be accessible not just from python but from any major Windows and Unix PL, where you need complex types, and where you wouldn't know what kind of tasks you'll be solving with it in a couple of years.

Sure ;) But these codelets are supposed to offer some kind of RPC-Service, once they are uploaded, several different "rpc functions" per service, various complex input and output data types, in a multi platform/OS environment. And the question was: what is better suited for that than SOAP.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:28:07 -0400, "Chaz." wrote:

I've built a 'ManholeFactory' to use with my application (see below). When I try to connect to it via the 'manhole' client (under Linux) it asks for Host, port, Name, Password, all of which I provide. But it gets an error returned.

I was wondering if I need to do anything special (besides what my manhole support does)?

The manhole you set up with the attached code only listens for SSH connections. The Gtk2 manhole client that you're running hasn't been updated to run with the new version of manhole yet. I've run your code and tried ssh'ing into it and everything seems to work alright. Jean-Paul

I have a problem to solve: I need to get files from one machine to another. I had thought about all the obvious solutions (and implemented some of them); for instance adding an FTP server to my Twisted services and using a client. I thought about doing the file transfer with XML-RPC and even SOAP. And I even thought of WebDav. I started reading about PB and thought it might be useful. I thought about building a "remote" class that simulates open and all its functions, like read, write, close, etc. The more I thought about it the more I thought it cool and the way to do it. That got me thinking that I must be missing something. I am curious about what you might think of this approach. Is there another better way? Peace, Chaz.

I have a problem to solve: I need to get files from one machine to another. I had thought about all the obvious solutions (and implemented some of them); for instance adding an FTP server to my Twisted services and using a client. I thought about doing the file transfer with XML-RPC and even SOAP. And I even thought of WebDav.

I started reading about PB and thought it might be useful.

PB, XML-RPC and SOAP introduce serialization and encoding overhead. FTP is uselessly complicated. WebDav may be too complicated for simple file transfers. Try plain HTTP, and add authentication and encryption if required. -- Nicola Larosa - http://www.tekNico.net/ We mustn't settle for negotiating "Net Neutrality". We must demand the basic right to connect and not just an enumerated list of what we are allowed to do. It's no different from having to negotiate free speech by listing what is allowed. Having to beg for permission to speak is offensive. -- Robert Frankston (cited by Doc Searls), March 2006

Paul, Thanks for the information. I hadn't thought about multiple pb connections, but I might even for my low-latency environment. I can have files that range from very small to very very large and getting them transferred in a reasonable period of time might might require many connections at once. In your solution did you just allow the client to "divide" up the work or was there something else you did? Chaz Paul G wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Chaz." To: "Twisted general discussion" Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 2:20 PM Subject: [Twisted-Python] Need words of wisdom regarding PB

...

I have a problem to solve: I need to get files from one machine to another. I had thought about all the obvious solutions (and implemented some of them); for instance adding an FTP server to my Twisted services and using a client. I thought about doing the file transfer with XML-RPC and even SOAP. And I even thought of WebDav.

I started reading about PB and thought it might be useful. I thought about building a "remote" class that simulates open and all its functions, like read, write, close, etc.

The more I thought about it the more I thought it cool and the way to do it. That got me thinking that I must be missing something. I am curious about what you might think of this approach. Is there another better way?

i implemented file transfer with an optional intermediate gzip stage using pb a long while ago. if you're dealing with fairly low latency, a single pb connection is fine; for higher latencies, you'll want to multiplex multiple pb connections (this has to do with tcp, not pb). with my quick hack, i was able to saturate a fast-e with virtually no significant cpu utilization - the disk io and the network were the bottlenecks.

-p

chaz, quick note: please don't top post (in replies to me, anyway). just common courtesy. in my context, the solution was meant as a synchronization method with some application-level logic to be used instead of rsync (i didn't need differencing and needed some complicated candidacy logic). the pb client simply opened multiple connections and sent data chunks labelled with chunk id and object id, multiplexed over the connection pool, with the chunks being pulled out of a queue that a threadpool reading from disk and optionally gzipping data was writing to. i didn't need to write logic to grow the connection pool to maximize bandwidth (i easily saturated a fast-e), but that would be trivial. note: i do not advocate doing this unless there is a very good reason existing tools won't work for your application. reinventing the wheel makes baby jesus cry. -p ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chaz." To: "Paul G" Cc: "Twisted general discussion" Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [Twisted-Python] Need words of wisdom regarding PB

Paul,

Thanks for the information. I hadn't thought about multiple pb connections, but I might even for my low-latency environment. I can have files that range from very small to very very large and getting them transferred in a reasonable period of time might might require many connections at once.

In your solution did you just allow the client to "divide" up the work or was there something else you did?

Chaz

Paul G wrote:

...

----- Original Message ----- From: "Chaz." To: "Twisted general discussion" Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 2:20 PM Subject: [Twisted-Python] Need words of wisdom regarding PB

...

I have a problem to solve: I need to get files from one machine to another. I had thought about all the obvious solutions (and implemented some of them); for instance adding an FTP server to my Twisted services and using a client. I thought about doing the file transfer with XML-RPC and even SOAP. And I even thought of WebDav.

I started reading about PB and thought it might be useful. I thought about building a "remote" class that simulates open and all its functions, like read, write, close, etc.

The more I thought about it the more I thought it cool and the way to do it. That got me thinking that I must be missing something. I am curious about what you might think of this approach. Is there another better way?

i implemented file transfer with an optional intermediate gzip stage using pb a long while ago. if you're dealing with fairly low latency, a single pb connection is fine; for higher latencies, you'll want to multiplex multiple pb connections (this has to do with tcp, not pb). with my quick hack, i was able to saturate a fast-e with virtually no significant cpu utilization - the disk io and the network were the bottlenecks.

-p

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:18:14 -0400, Paul G wrote:

i was compressing the data before sending it over pb, while you seem to be interested in doing this automagically at the pb or transport level.

This is, nevertheless, generally the correct way to compress data in PB. PB itself is so low-overhead that compression isn't going to buy you much in terms of overhead reduction, and jellying/unjellying something that is already a byte sequence is a waste of time. compress the data, transfer blocks of compressed data as PB strings - the strings are incredibly low overhead and length-prefixed so there isn't any real parsing overhead.