Pyro stability

[writeson]

Hi all,

At work I'm considering proposing a solution for our distributed
processing system (a web based shopping cart that feeds an actual
printing production line) based on Pyro. I've done some minor
experiments with this and Pyro looks interesting and like a good
implementation of what I want. I've got a couple of questions though:

1) Has anyone had any experience with Pyro, and if so, have you had
any stability, or memory use issues running Pyro servers or nameservers
on the various participating computers? (We have a mixed environment of
Linux and Windows, but will be heading to an all Linux (RedHat)
environment soon.

2) One of the guys I work with is more inclined to set up XMLRPC
communication between the processes, and he is also leery of running
daemon processes. His solution is to have essentially Python CGI code
that responds to the various XMLRPC requests. Does anyone have any
opinions on this? I know what mine are already. :)

3) I've considered using CORBA, which is more powerful, and certainly
faster, but it's complexity to set up compared to the rather simple
work I'm trying to do seems prohibative. Does anyone have any thoughts
on this?

Thanks in advance,
Doug

[Irmen de Jong]

Re: Pyro stability

writeson wrote:
[some questions about Pyro]

I've replied to this on Pyro's mailing list.
-Irmen

[writeson]

Re: Pyro stability

Irmen,

Thanks, you're very good about answering Pyro related questions!

Thanks again. I posted a more detailed question to the mailing list
describing as best I could how I want to use Pyro and the questions I
have in regards to the system described.

Doug

Irmen de Jong wrote:

writeson wrote:
[some questions about Pyro]
>
I've replied to this on Pyro's mailing list.
-Irmen

[Irmen de Jong]

Re: Pyro stability

writeson wrote:

Irmen,
>
Thanks, you're very good about answering Pyro related questions!

Well, I do have an advantage here, being Pyro's author... :)

--Irmen

[Carl J. Van Arsdall]

Re: Pyro stability

Irmen de Jong wrote:

writeson wrote:
>

>Irmen,
>>
>Thanks, you're very good about answering Pyro related questions!
>>

>
Well, I do have an advantage here, being Pyro's author.
>

And I don't know if you get this enough... but thanks. Pyro is fucking
amazing and has been a great help to a couple of our projects.

-carl

--

Carl J. Van Arsdall
cvanarsdall@mvi sta.com
Build and Release
MontaVista Software

[Beliavsky]

Re: Pyro stability

Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:

<snip>

Pyro is fucking amazing and has been a great help to a couple of our projects.

You should watch your language in a forum with thousands of readers.

[Paul Boddie]

Re: Pyro stability

Beliavsky wrote:

Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:

[Enthusiasm for Pyro, not for those with sensitivity to rude words]

You should watch your language in a forum with thousands of readers.

It was quite an endorsement, though. ;-)

Paul

[Carl J. Van Arsdall]

Re: Pyro stability

Paul Boddie wrote:

Beliavsky wrote:
>

>Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:
>>

>
[Enthusiasm for Pyro, not for those with sensitivity to rude words]
>
>

>You should watch your language in a forum with thousands of readers.
>>

I think you should find better things to complain about and not worry
about language usage so much.

-c

--

Carl J. Van Arsdall
cvanarsdall@mvi sta.com
Build and Release
MontaVista Software

[Cliff Wells]

Re: Pyro stability

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 18:20 -0800, Beliavsky wrote:

Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:
>
<snip>
>

Pyro is fucking amazing and has been a great help to a couple of our projects.

>
You should watch your language in a forum with thousands of readers.

The LA Times had a story that claimed that 64% of U.S. citizens use the
word "fuck" and that 74% of us have heard it in public (I'll assume the
remainder are your fellow AOL users). I expect extrapolating these
results worldwide wouldn't be far off the mark (the Brits were quite
successful at spreading this versatile word).

I think the gap between what people actually find offensive and what
people are afraid others will find offensive is pretty wide indeed.

Regards,
Cliff

[Steve Holden]

Re: Pyro stability

Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:

Paul Boddie wrote:
>

>>Beliavsky wrote:
>>
>>

>>>Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:
>>>

>>
>>[Enthusiasm for Pyro, not for those with sensitivity to rude words]
>>
>>
>>

>>>You should watch your language in a forum with thousands of readers.
>>>

>
I think you should find better things to complain about and not worry
about language usage so much.
>

It didn't seem like an unreasonable request to me, though I concede that
you aren't (yet :-) known throughout Usenet for your profanity.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

[John Henry]

Re: Pyro stability

Being a non-professional programmer, I've managed to use Pyro to do
what I need to do with very minimal fuss. In fact, I don't even
understand a lot of what's under the cover. All I did was to mimic
what one of the sample program is doing and adapted it to my need.

So far I am very happy with Pyro.

And no, I don't need to use profanity to describe to you how amazing I
think Pyro is. :=)

writeson wrote:

Hi all,
>
At work I'm considering proposing a solution for our distributed
processing system (a web based shopping cart that feeds an actual
printing production line) based on Pyro. I've done some minor
experiments with this and Pyro looks interesting and like a good
implementation of what I want. I've got a couple of questions though:
>
1) Has anyone had any experience with Pyro, and if so, have you had
any stability, or memory use issues running Pyro servers or nameservers
on the various participating computers? (We have a mixed environment of
Linux and Windows, but will be heading to an all Linux (RedHat)
environment soon.
>
2) One of the guys I work with is more inclined to set up XMLRPC
communication between the processes, and he is also leery of running
daemon processes. His solution is to have essentially Python CGI code
that responds to the various XMLRPC requests. Does anyone have any
opinions on this? I know what mine are already. :)
>
3) I've considered using CORBA, which is more powerful, and certainly
faster, but it's complexity to set up compared to the rather simple
work I'm trying to do seems prohibative. Does anyone have any thoughts
on this?
>
Thanks in advance,
Doug

[Carl J. Van Arsdall]

Re: Pyro stability

Steve Holden wrote:

Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:
>

>Paul Boddie wrote:
>>
>>

>>Beliavsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>[Enthusiasm for Pyro, not for those with sensitivity to rude words]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You should watch your language in a forum with thousands of readers.
>>>>
>>>>

>I think you should find better things to complain about and not worry
>about language usage so much.
>>
>>

It didn't seem like an unreasonable request to me, though I concede that
you aren't (yet :-) known throughout Usenet for your profanity.
>
>

Well, I wouldn't want to be known for it, but some technologies are just
so A+mazing that I can't contain myself. Pyro happens to be one of
those great things where profanity *is* necessary. I would never want
to cheapen my emotion by leaving out colorful language ;)



--

Carl J. Van Arsdall
cvanarsdall@mvi sta.com
Build and Release
MontaVista Software

[Beliavsky]

profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)


Cliff Wells wrote:

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 18:20 -0800, Beliavsky wrote:

Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:

<snip>

Pyro is fucking amazing and has been a great help to a couple of our projects.

You should watch your language in a forum with thousands of readers.

>
The LA Times had a story that claimed that 64% of U.S. citizens use the
word "fuck" and that 74% of us have heard it in public (I'll assume the
remainder are your fellow AOL users). I expect extrapolating these
results worldwide wouldn't be far off the mark (the Brits were quite
successful at spreading this versatile word).

If this is supposed to justify using bad language in a public forum, it
is poorly reasoned. Having heard "f***" does not mean they were not
annoyed. 100% of people have seen trash on the street, but that does
not justify littering. If a group of people don't mind profanity, there
is no harm in their swearing to each other. But Usenet is read by a
wide range of people, and needlessly offending some of them is wrong.
The OP used "f******" just for emphasis. English is a rich language,
and there are better ways of doing that.

[Aahz]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

In article <1162997345.277 966.31860@h48g2 000cwc.googlegr oups.com>,
Beliavsky <beliavsky@aol. comwrote:

>
>If this is supposed to justify using bad language in a public forum,
>it is poorly reasoned. Having heard "f***" does not mean they were not
>annoyed. 100% of people have seen trash on the street, but that does
>not justify littering. If a group of people don't mind profanity, there
>is no harm in their swearing to each other. But Usenet is read by a
>wide range of people, and needlessly offending some of them is wrong.
>The OP used "f******" just for emphasis. English is a rich language,
>and there are better ways of doing that.

Oh, gimme a fucking break. Do a simple Gooja search to find out how
often people already use "fuck" around here. I think you're the one who
needs to justify your position.
--
Aahz (aahz@pythoncra ft.com) <* http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"In many ways, it's a dull language, borrowing solid old concepts from
many other languages & styles: boring syntax, unsurprising semantics,
few automatic coercions, etc etc. But that's one of the things I like
about it." --Tim Peters on Python, 16 Sep 1993

[Chaz Ginger]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

Aahz wrote:

In article <1162997345.277 966.31860@h48g2 000cwc.googlegr oups.com>,
Beliavsky <beliavsky@aol. comwrote:

>If this is supposed to justify using bad language in a public forum,
>it is poorly reasoned. Having heard "f***" does not mean they were not
>annoyed. 100% of people have seen trash on the street, but that does
>not justify littering. If a group of people don't mind profanity, there
>is no harm in their swearing to each other. But Usenet is read by a
>wide range of people, and needlessly offending some of them is wrong.
>The OP used "f******" just for emphasis. English is a rich language,
>and there are better ways of doing that.

>
Oh, gimme a fucking break. Do a simple Gooja search to find out how
often people already use "fuck" around here. I think you're the one who
needs to justify your position.

Let me recommend something: take this thread off line. First, if you
have an issue with the language, talk to the person via email. Secondly
let's not let this get out of hand. All opinions are personal. Only one
really matters in this group: it is supposed to be about PYTHON. Get it?

Chaz