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 0.00391384
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