On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:20 PM, <exarkun at twistedmatrix.com> wrote: >> The desire is there, but it's a hard problem. There was a similar >> discussion before PyCon 2009, but not much came of it: >> >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-March/086678.html > > I started working on a PEP last year, but I didn't get very far partly > because I doubted the desire. > > What part do you think is a hard problem? Convincing people to switch to a > new API? *Defining* the new API doesn't seem very hard to me. If there is an essential subset of the API that the Twisted devs think would be a suitable replacement for asyncore, while providing a more straightforward migration path into Twisted itself, then it certainly makes sense to include it. The other possible sticking point I can see is that I don't know how Twisted's licensing works - is there anyone with the legal authority to appropriately license the code to the PSF for inclusion in the standard library? Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4