PythonD: 4Suite or Twisted?

[Peter Hansen]

David Bolen wrote:
> 
> Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:
> 
> >    (...)      The core internet components, for example, are quite robust
> > already, and you will rarely see messages about rewriting/refactoring
> > those pieces.
> 
> Just one small comment, since I generally don't see it mentioned in
> postings about Twisted - the underlying protocol support for internet
> components appear robust in terms of TCP support, but we found that
> UDP support was much weaker when we last looked at Twisted (not too
> long ago).
> 
> To the extent that WAN applications for existing popular protocols are
> virtually all TCP based, this isn't much of an issue (and probably
> explains the state of affairs), but if you're thinking of using
> Twisted for in-house development, it's at least something to be aware
> of and to check that it has the functionality you need.  For example
> in our case, we use UDP-based systems probably in equal amounts to TCP
> based systems for in house code.
> 
> Note that this is far from a knock on Twisted, which is certainly an
> attractive framework in its own right.  But references to its support
> for network processing generally don't mention the different level of
> support at the protocol layer.

Good point.  I guess, given the nature of Twisted development (XP
style methodology) it will take a few more people who actually need
UDP support to fix it up right and contribute their work, before that
area can be as stable as the TCP parts are.

-Peter