From: Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-04-18T04:39:02+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Libraries (was Re: Re:)


Le 17/4/2005, "James Edward Gray II" <james@grayproductions.net> a
�crit:
>On Apr 16, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, Ruby doesn't need Twisted, as it has a strong
>> networking library built in. There is TCPServer, there is Webrick, and
>> there are other items, too.
>
>This isn't the same, in my opinion.
>
>The Socket/Server classes are very low level.  GServer is more of a
>high-level approach but assumes Ruby's non-native threads are all you
>need for server IO and that's really only true in simple applications.
>Remember, a large write is all it takes to halt the entire Ruby
>process.
>
>Also remember that POE/Twisted include event loop implementations.
>That can be quite handy.
>
>I personally would love to see the Ruby equivalent of POE/Twisted.
>Might push us into the server world a bit more...
>
>> I may look at what Twisted really offers and write something up that
>> shows what Ruby does that may duplicate Twisted.
>
>I would love to see you're opinion of why it isn't needed, as long as
>we can debate it a little.  :)

My opinion on the matter is that Twisted is a horrendous
piece of convoluted, sick and strangely engineered work
(no experience with POE), and therefore not suitable for
duplication.

I have a wrapper library for libevent somewhere. Perhaps
I will dust it off if I can locate it.

>James Edward Gray II

E

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }