[Twisted-Python] "Ports" vs. "Listeners"

Chris Armstrong carmstro at twistedmatrix.com
Mon Jul 30 14:46:18 EDT 2001

I really do not like that we call our "servers" "Ports". I think a much
better term would be "Listener". I've talked to glyph before about this,
and he's  usually been too busy to discuss it with me (at least, that's what
*he* says...), so here it is on the list. What's wrong with using "Listener"?

A lot of people get confused by the term "Port". When they think "Port",
they don't necessarily think of "something that sits on a port, and listens
for incoming connections". That's just how I understand it. Another argument
against Port is that it's not only for "waiting for incoming connections" --
clients also allocate ports when they connect to remote hosts. So, even
technically, Port is an inaccurate term for this class. You might find other
technical details that make "Listener" slightly inaccurate, but it still
just Makes Sense to most people (I'm guessing -- DavidC_, after me using
the word "Port", and explaining that I'd rather prefer "listener", told
me he would've immediately understood what I was talking about if I had
used that term from the beginning).

So, it should just be known that I am vehemently against using "Port" for
this class. If you can come up with something better than Listener (and
that also *makes sense* without having it explained to me first), then
that's great.

More information about the Twisted-Python mailing list