This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients giampaolo.rodola, maker, pitrou, r.david.murray, terry.reedy, vinay.sajip
Date 2012-05-16.09:18:58
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1337159798.3374.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <>
> Given that asyncore's design allows for a socket map to be passed in
> (at least in part - RDM's comment), ISTM that it should support this
> consistently, and also that smtpd should support this mode of use.

Well, I would argue that asyncore's design is thoroughly broken, and
passing a socket map is a poor kludge to avoid global state; in a
sophisticated event loop, the socket map wouldn't be the only piece of
state to pass around.
(look at twisted's reactors for a comparison)
Date User Action Args
2012-05-16 09:18:59pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, terry.reedy, vinay.sajip, giampaolo.rodola, r.david.murray, maker
2012-05-16 09:18:58pitroulinkissue11959 messages
2012-05-16 09:18:58pitroucreate