[Stackless] An idea for making Stackless more naturally Re: Stackless Digest,
richard.m.tew at gmail.com
Tue Sep 5 09:30:18 CEST 2006
On 9/4/06, Andrew Francis <andrewfr_ice at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have not looked at how taskLoop() is implemented. I
> suspect it may be using the timeout feature of
> accept(). What I am concerned about is that the
> solution works and the ramifications of what happens
> if the timing interval is too small. Do callbacks get
> stacked? Or eventually lost?
I suspect I would have to understand Twisted to have
any answer to this question.
> >Now, the natural next step from this is to replace
> all >blocking calls in the builtins, standard lib or
> >whatever with similar support.
> Richard, I think Stackless users would get much more
> bang for the buck if Stackless could work more
> seemlessly with Twisted. Perhaps in the end, this
> entails getting Stackless to seemlessly work with low
> level asynchronous socket I/O, as you and Andrew
> suggested. Or maybe it is just a case of getting
> Twisted to run its own thread in the Stackless VM and
> modifying channels to work with it? I have to think
> about this.
Well, I personally do not know much about, or have much
interest in Twisted and cannot see myself ever personally
supporting Stackless use with Twisted. But it sounds like
you are well into this, and anything you can provide which
makes Stackless something appealing to someone using
Twisted (the ability to write natural blocking calls without
having to use deferreds or generators should be enough
IMO) would be appreciated.
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
More information about the Stackless