A Twisted Design Decision

[Jean-Paul Calderone]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:30:32 -0800 (PST), koranthala <koranthala at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 28, 7:10 pm, Jean-Paul Calderone <exar... at divmod.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:02:57 -0800 (PST), koranthala <koranth... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 27, 9:27 pm, koranthala <koranth... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 27, 6:57 pm, Jean-Paul Calderone <exar... at divmod.com> wrote:
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >> Thank you Jean-Paul.
>> >> My code is more complex than what I have mentioned. When I mentioned
>> >> msg.send, the msg object actually gets the data from DB etc to send.
>> >> And there are many other items being done.
>> >> I will try to see whether I can change the code to incorporate what
>> >> you mentioned.
>>
>> >> I rewrote most of my code after learning just raw deferreds - I had
>> >> planned to study inlineCallbacks - but then it slipped my mind  - now
>> >> it has come to bit me. :-(
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >  I tried to update the code as per the suggestion, but to no avail.
>> >  My system uses Python2.4.3 (cannot move to 2.5) - so I tried to
>> >rewrite with deferredGenerators - since I thought inlineCallbacks are
>> >similar to deferredGenerators.
>>
>> >  But I cannot seem to rewrite it in a format where the functional
>> >encapsulation is not broken.
>> >  i.e. as I mentioned in the first example - I have to pass SELF to
>> >child objects for them to modify it.
>>
>> Why?  You don't do this in the original version of your code.  Why do
>> it after switching to Twisted (particularly since you seem to want *not*
>> to)?
>>
>> Jean-Paul
>
>Without that, I am unable to increment success and failure counters
>which are part of the message handler object.
>In the original version, if send fails the return value of
>protocol.send is propogated back to msg.send and to msg handler.send.
>But in twisted, it is not so. So, I have to pass in SELF through to
>increment success and failure counter.
>Is it possible otherwise in twisted?

Why isn't the return value of protocol.send propagated back to msg.send?
It sounds like it should be.

Jean-Paul