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 gvanrossum
Recipients akuchling, djarb, facundobatista, forest, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, intgr, j1m, jafo, josiahcarlson, kevinwatters, markb, mcdonc, stutzbach, tseaver
Date 2009-04-02.17:26:58
SpamBayes Score 0.0039138426
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <ca471dc20904021026h45da4ea3hb9f9b63f9afbfe19@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1238684586.65.0.181916403445.issue1641@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
[Guido]
>> Looking back, I think Zope and Medusa should have adopted and evolved
>> their own copy of asynchat a long time ago...

[Jim]
> This statement is puzzling.  No big deal, but I'm curious why you say
> this.

ISTR that Zope has or had significant monkeypatches to at least one of
asyncore/asynchat. The resulting coupling between Zope and asyn* has
meant that the de-facto API of asyn* was much more than the documented
API. IMO that's a sign of a poorly designed API (in asyn*). If Zope
had had its own copy of asyn* (under a different name of course) that
relied only on lower-level APIs (sockets and select), it could have
evolved that copy directly without the need for monkeypatching.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-04-02 17:27:01gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, akuchling, facundobatista, jafo, josiahcarlson, tseaver, forest, giampaolo.rodola, kevinwatters, djarb, stutzbach, markb, intgr, mcdonc, j1m
2009-04-02 17:26:59gvanrossumlinkissue1641 messages
2009-04-02 17:26:58gvanrossumcreate