PythonD: 4Suite or Twisted?

Peter Hansen peter at
Wed Jun 4 20:05:48 CEST 2003

David Bolen wrote:
> Peter Hansen <peter at> writes:
> >    (...)      The core internet components, for example, are quite robust
> > already, and you will rarely see messages about rewriting/refactoring
> > those pieces.
> Just one small comment, since I generally don't see it mentioned in
> postings about Twisted - the underlying protocol support for internet
> components appear robust in terms of TCP support, but we found that
> UDP support was much weaker when we last looked at Twisted (not too
> long ago).
> To the extent that WAN applications for existing popular protocols are
> virtually all TCP based, this isn't much of an issue (and probably
> explains the state of affairs), but if you're thinking of using
> Twisted for in-house development, it's at least something to be aware
> of and to check that it has the functionality you need.  For example
> in our case, we use UDP-based systems probably in equal amounts to TCP
> based systems for in house code.
> Note that this is far from a knock on Twisted, which is certainly an
> attractive framework in its own right.  But references to its support
> for network processing generally don't mention the different level of
> support at the protocol layer.

Good point.  I guess, given the nature of Twisted development (XP
style methodology) it will take a few more people who actually need
UDP support to fix it up right and contribute their work, before that
area can be as stable as the TCP parts are.


More information about the Python-list mailing list