openstack team mailing list archive

Thread
Date

Re: eventlet weirdness

To: Armando Migliaccio <Armando.Migliaccio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Eric Windisch <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:59:48 -0500
Authentication-results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx designates 10.52.99.194 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: openstack <openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <2BAFFF2BACC5E545B3264F3CBD529190C4D9008030@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>

> 
> I agree, but then the whole assumption of adopting eventlet to simplify the programming model is hindered by the fact that one has to think harder to what is doing...Nova could've kept Twisted for that matter. The programming model would have been harder, but at least it would have been cleaner and free from icky patching (that's my own opinion anyway).

Then the assumption is wrong. You need to write with the premise of working with Eventlet. For me, eventlet has complicated the programming model by forcing me to a specific pattern, although I must admit this has largely been due to my use of a C library (libzmq).

-- 
Eric Windisch

References

Re: eventlet weirdness
From: Joshua Harlow, 2012-03-02
Re: eventlet weirdness
From: Eric Windisch, 2012-03-02
Re: eventlet weirdness
From: Armando Migliaccio, 2012-03-02