<html><body>On 01:18 pm, andrewfr_ice@yahoo.com wrote:<br />>>Well, I personally do not know much about, or have<br />>>much interest in Twisted and cannot see myself ever<br />>>personally supporting Stackless use with Twisted.<br />>But >it sounds like you are well into this,<br />><br />>I am still learning Twisted myself. And WS-BPEL<br />>processors really push the web services envelop. I<br />>need all the high level that I can get.<br />><br />>I find it great that I can get a decent HTTP server<br />>and client and get it to work with Stackless with very<br />>few tricks. Again, I am keen on Twisted because it is<br />>a well supported and popular framework in the Python<br />>community. Richard I think Stackless/Twisted have the<br />>makings of a killer combination.<br />><br />>>and anything you can provide which<br />>>makes Stackless something appealing to someone using<br />>>Twisted (the ability to write natural blocking calls<br />>>without having to use deferreds or generators should<br />>>be enough IMO) would be appreciated.<br />><br />>Richard, I haven't used deferred lists yet but I find<br />>the deferred work really well with Stackless. At most,<br />>there are minor changes I would like to see in Twisted<br />>to make it a bit neater to pass a channel, but that is<br />>not a Stackless problem.<br /><br />You might want to check out http://www.stackless.com/wiki/TwistedOnStackless<br /></body></html>