Other wx/twisted methods (was Re: [Twisted-Python]

glyph at divmod.com glyph at divmod.com
Sun Sep 24 15:47:24 EDT 2006

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 04:53:54 -0400, Stephen Waterbury <waterbug at pangalactic.us> wrote:
>glyph at divmod.com wrote:
>>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:33:11 -0400, Stephen Waterbury 
>><waterbug at pangalactic.us> wrote:

>>In every other toolkit Twisted supports,
>... of which there's really only *one* (GTK)

Fair enough.  I meant to say that the way Twisted apps are designed is to treat all events as events.  This would require writing extra glue code for certain tyes of events.

>Okay.  I'm willing to do without that.

In that case, more power to you :)

>I think *that* is the real problem ... not technical, just interest
>from the right people.  I've waited enough years (about 5) that
>I've given up on that.

I've done a lot of waiting too.  Now I'm starting with the yelling and hollering, see if that strategy works better :).

>I completely agree that it should not be part of Twisted
>at all ... but if I succeed with it, I'll certainly document what I

Sounds great to me.

>>One major reason I'd like a WX reactor to continue to exist in some form is 
>>OSAF's usage of Twisted and WX.  They have a similarly baroque model for 
>>handing data back and forth between Twisted code and GUI code, ...
>... and everything else (sorry, couldn't resist ;) ...

Heh.  Let's just keep it straight on the record - *I* didn't say it! :-)

>... hmmm ... I've been on all the OSAF Chandler/Scooby/Cosmo lists
>since April (and that's a lot of freakin' mail ;), and not *once* in
>that interval has "twisted" occurred in the subject line of a
>message, and no substantive discussion of it in the bodies either.

Yeah, I don't think that this is really a high priority issue for them.  Their application works fine in its current state, and they have a LOT of programmers working on it.  A change to the architecture at this point would be so expensive that any other benefits which might come along with it wouldn't be worth it.

>I know about their zanshin twisted-based framework for WebDAV/CalDAV,
>and that it's used in their Sharing architecture, which is used by
>the Chandler wx GUI, but I just updated my chandler svn checkout, and
>I counted 17 occurrences of the zanshin "blockUntil" function in the
>Sharing.py module ... if it's so clean, how come they need those?

I was just trying to be nice :-P.

>(In zanshin's docs, "blockUntil" is billed as "for test purposes" ... ;)

Oh yeah, I remember that "test" function... heh heh.  I wish them much luck in the 5-year 1000-man project it takes to remove it.

>Well, yeah, but I don't think OSAF has the resources to put into it
>either, and Robin *works* for OSAF.

I just don't think it's a relevant issue for them.  They're not even using the code I'm talking about removing.

>As if there's going to be some other "tested, robust integration
>support" ... nothing on the horizon that I can see (and as I say,
>I've been watching for a long time).


>Process spawning!  Rusty code!  Spawning threads, *and* blocking!
>My, you do paint a rosy picture.  All your handwaving and FUD makes
>me want to try it, because it's probably quicker and easier than
>discussing it.  But thanks for the warnings, anyway!  ;)

What can I say?  Everything is completely terrible.  Still, good luck trying to make that work; let us know how it goes.

More information about the Twisted-Python mailing list