Skip to main content

Relearning Twisted.web

I want to use Twisted.web for some projects, and I haven't used it in years. I'm relearning and I feel like a novice all over again, as I should, given the years that have passed since I have seriously looked at any twisted code. I miss it, very much. Want to relearn or learn for the first time? I can't stress enough the excellence of a quick pass through the examples of Twisted.web in 60 Seconds. Go through those immediately. Afterwards, I read up on the new twisted.web.template, which is based on the Nevow templates I worked with so long-feeling ago, and I'm pretty happy with what I see there. I'm wondering how well it will produce HTML5 compliant markup, not that it is very strict, but it looks pretty clear.

My brain still thinks in asynchronous operations and I constantly have to unravel those thoughts and figure out how to express them, non-ideally, in a synchronous workflow. This is becoming tiring, and while I don't plan on leaving Django, I do plan on giving my brain a rest. Maybe I'll find a way to combine my two interests in the near future...

This is the result of the hour I spent relearning last night.

import time


from twisted.web.server import Site, NOT_DONE_YET
from twisted.web.static import File
from twisted.web.resource import Resource

from twisted.internet import reactor
from twisted.internet.defer import Deferred

class ClockPage(Resource):
    isLeaf = True
    def render_GET(self, request):
        d = Deferred()
        @d.addCallback
        def _(r):
            request.write("<html><body>%s</body></html>" % (r,))
            request.finish()

        def get_time(r):
            d.callback(time.ctime())

        reactor.callLater(2, get_time, None)
        return NOT_DONE_YET

resource = ClockPage()
factory = Site(resource)
reactor.listenTCP(8888, factory)

reactor.run()

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…