Itamar Shtull-Trauring wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:34:31 -0400 Peter Hansen wrote:

...

and Twisted for the "back end" of our application. Zope still uses Python 2.1 so we would be unable to do this with Python 2.2. Since we will definitely have excised all traces of Zope by the time anything really changes with Twisted and 2.2, I'm not seriously concerned but I thought I'd note it as an interesting data point.

Arte you using them in the same process? Or as separate processes? Any reason you can't install two versions of Python at once?

Same process. Rewriting as two processes, communicating via sockets internally or something, would be larger rework than just excising Zope, which is a goal for other reasons anyway. -Peter

Hello Bob,

...

I am writing clone of my worknode in C++, so Twisted version is used just until I complete C++ version. This is because of productivity concerns, I have hit Python's productivity ceiling. After that I may succeed in writing cluster kernel and web interface in Twisted. I.e. still no success story, sorry.

BI> Have you considered using something like BOOST.Python or Pyrex to do BI> optimized implementations of the portions that have poor performance? BI> Typically, rewriting the whole thing in C/C++ is a bad idea. I am using just Psyco, but wow! Never saw these two. Thanks, Bob. -- Best regards, Dmitry mailto:kwaker@uch.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 12:54 AM, Moshe Zadka wrote:

On Debian woody (stable), Python/GTK+ is available only for Python 2.1. This means woody users would not be able to use the GUI clients in Twisted (some of which are GTK+-based). In addition, other libraries which specific developers might wish to use might be unavailable for Python 2.2. I can probably conjure up a list of such libraries.

Python/GTK+ is only necessary for two arguably experimental portions of Twisted - im and manhole. I think that it is acceptable to remove support in Debian woody for these, considering that more substantial, stable portions of Twisted (e.g. Conch, and twisted.web SSL) don't work, since they require libraries that are missing on woody. Future GTK+ work is going to be using GTK2 anyway, considering that it is vastly more stable for the kinds of things we want to do, most of which involve displaying large, scrolling blocks of text. PyQT is technically in Debian, but the version in Woody isn't very useful, and I haven't heard from anyone using it with Twisted. There are no third-party programs that support Debian woody which require GTK to be working with Twisted. As to other libraries - my primary concern was with database drivers which may have been incompatible with Python-2.2. However, it appears that all DB-API compatible drivers that come with Woody have both python-2.1 and python-2.2 versions. I've just spent the last few weeks working without the 2.1-support constraint, and I can see why all the Twisted developers have been clamoring for 2.2 :-). While I have some concern that moving along with rearrangements of Python's basic semantics encourages the development of useless, whiz-bang infrastructure, the fact is that the new object model is substantially more amenable to necessary features like those implemented in twisted.python.components and twisted.python.reflect. The results of this survey appear to indicate that most Twisted users are not using Python-2.1, and those that are plan to stop in the near future. Also, as far as I can tell, nobody on the development team uses Python 2.1 any more, and so test failures related to 2.1 incompatibilities are always caught after the fact. I think it would improve our development speed and the general attitude of the team, so I propose we cut over to 2.2 immediately. For the reasons I gave above, I don't think the GTK situation is important enough to prevent this. If anyone else would like to give reasons for not going ahead with this, please speak now or forever hold your peace :) (This does not mean "everybody check in 2.2-only code". It means "get ready to check in 2.2-only code". I will hopefully announce open season on 2.2 features later this week.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQE+qJTMvVGR4uSOE2wRAifhAJ4v2MGaU3lYFQgF2ft+yMFHxpBw2ACglh+u 60N1LM62g2voaw2ygpT2P9Q= =wsDm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:42:15 +0200 Nicola Larosa wrote:

What about the Jython situation?

Do you use jython with twisted? AFAIK no one does. And it's close to being useless anyway. Hopefully by the time 1.4 is widespread and we can write a decent nio reactor (the current java reactor is more proof-of-concept than useful implementation), Jython will support 2.2. -- Itamar Shtull-Trauring http://itamarst.org/ http://www.zoteca.com -- Python & Twisted consulting

On Thursday, Apr 24, 2003, at 06:30 America/New_York, William Dode wrote:

Itamar Shtull-Trauring writes:

...

1. Do you require Python 2.1 support in Twisted? If so, for what reason? How problematic would a switch to 2.2 be for you? Please try to answer within a week so we can have some immediate info.

no. But why don't wait somes month and switch directly to python2.3 ?

Well I don't think any of us have found that python 2.3 has significant new conveniences that can't be done adequately in 2.2 (i.e., it's possible to implement the itertools module in pure python, emulate the new dict creation behavior, etc.). It seems to be mostly new modules, bugfixes, and performance enhancements. Moving from 2.1 to 2.2 does have significant new features, though (mostly generators and new style classes). Also, when 2.3 is released, hopefully in a few months, it'll probably take the better part of a year /after/ that for python 2.3 to come into common use (i.e. ISPs, linux distributions, etc.). -bob

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:12:28 +0000 "Clark C. Evans" wrote:

Python 2.1 was the "blessed" version of Python that Guido had said would be supported for a _long_ time out (like 1.5 was).

No, that was 2.2. Debian Woody has Python 2.2 included. -- Itamar Shtull-Trauring http://itamarst.org/ http://www.zoteca.com -- Python & Twisted consulting

"Clark C. Evans" wrote:

Also, someone posted that it didn't take too many changes to make Twisted 2.0 compatible. Perhaps we should consider committing those changes.

'Twas I who said something like that, but I have to caution that it was definitely not a case of making all of Twisted run under 2.0. All I did, as a spike, was to repeatedly run our little test program, which imported about three things from twisted.internet, and patch -- in the most hideously ugly but direct manner that I could -- anything which complained. I think there were about three complaints, two of which were nested scope warnings. To fix these, I simply removed the "from __future__" statement and ran again. I think the other thing needed a stub/mock of some kind, with no functionality. I supposed the code involved is either not being invoked (but was giving syntax errors or warnings), or is managing to function normally or near normally in spite of being invoked without nested scopes working. There are probably a *lot* of latent problems, but for our purposes it seems to be adequate. There's no way I'd translate this into a suggestion any of these changes should be checked in though! :-) -Peter

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 11:37:55AM -0400, Skinny Puppy wrote:

...

2. Do you have any Twisted success stories you'd like to share (besides those listed in our success stories page, of course)?

I have twisted running with ldaptor on over 200 Solaris systems, pulling configs out of LDAP for inetd/dnscache/tinydns/ldap.conf (pam/nss)/cron and a few others things. I do keep my own cvs of both twisted and ldaptor due to my need for having TLS built directly in <HINT>. (yes I sent a patch). They are highly out of date but work for me now.

Ooh! An actual ldaptor user! At this point, you are the most important external party using ldaptor, it seems. How's it been? Any thoughts on what you would want to see? -- :(){ :|:&};:

On Sunday, Apr 27, 2003, at 06:27 America/New_York, Skinny Puppy wrote:

We have added TLS support to ldaptor to go along with the TLS patch I wrote for twisted. I am not able to release that patch due to it was created by working with another employee.

That doesn't really make any sense. Does your employer have some ridiculous "we own you" IP contract? -bob

On Sunday, Apr 27, 2003, at 07:10 America/New_York, Skinny Puppy wrote:

Bob Ippolito [bob@redivi.com] wrote:

...

On Sunday, Apr 27, 2003, at 06:27 America/New_York, Skinny Puppy wrote:

...

We have added TLS support to ldaptor to go along with the TLS patch I wrote for twisted. I am not able to release that patch due to it was created by working with another employee.

That doesn't really make any sense. Does your employer have some ridiculous "we own you" IP contract?

Yes - I have permission (in writing for what i do at home is mine) but other employees do not (or have not even asked). And all work done at the office is owned wholly by my employer. There is really nothing I can do, I have ask permission to release it back to everyone and was denied. The TLS patch i sent was created at home just for this reason.

Wow, your job sucks :) I used to have one of those a few years ago. I wonder if they realize that it actually bleeds time for you to maintain your own internal versions of open source software? -bob