looking for MOP documentation

[kasper graversen]

hello there.

I've been searching the web (including the www.python.org :) but in vain of
finding recent documentation for the python MOP. I see some information on
python 1.5---is this the best and still valid information today?

sincerely
\kasper

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[Uwe Hoffmann]

kasper graversen wrote:

hello there.

I've been searching the web (including the www.python.org :) but in vain
of finding recent documentation for the python MOP. I see some
information on python 1.5---is this the best and still valid information
today?

sincerely
\kasper

http://www.python.org/2.2.3/descrintro.html#metaclasses
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-pymeta2

[Anthony Baxter]

kasper graversen wrote

hello there.

I've been searching the web (including the www.python.org :) but in vain of
finding recent documentation for the python MOP. I see some information on
python 1.5---is this the best and still valid information today?

Erm, what's "MOP" mean? The current python is 2.3, and should probably be
used everywhere possible (1.5 is seriously seriously old)

Anthony
--
Anthony Baxter <an*****@interl ink.com.au>
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

[Peter Hansen]

Anthony Baxter wrote:

kasper graversen wrote

hello there.

I've been searching the web (including the www.python.org :) but in vain of
finding recent documentation for the python MOP. I see some information on
python 1.5---is this the best and still valid information today?

Erm, what's "MOP" mean? The current python is 2.3, and should probably be
used everywhere possible (1.5 is seriously seriously old)

Please don't push a .0 release more aggressively than it really deserves.

(Among, likely, other problems) 2.3 has a memory leak that could cause
long-running network programs to have difficulties. It has been fixed
in CVS, so 2.3.1 will doubtless be better in this area, but some people
should definitely *not* be upgrading to 2.3 just yet.

Not to say 2.3 isn't better by far in many areas, but I'd be cautious
pushing it for "mission critical" stuff just yet.

(I don't have a reference handy, but we found the leak independently
by tracing it to a connect_ex() on a non-blocking socket, then found
a link in Google.)

-Peter

[Peter Hansen]

Peter Hansen wrote:

(Among, likely, other problems) 2.3 has a memory leak that could cause
long-running network programs to have difficulties.

(I don't have a reference handy, ...

Here's where we found the reference... first response to

http://www.google.ca/search?q=connect_ex+memory+leak

For the record, here was the near-minimal code which led
us to do the above search:

import socket
def conn():
s = socket.socket(s ocket.AF_INET, socket.SOCKSTRE AM)
try:
s.setblocking(0 )
for i in xrange(100):
s.connect_ex((' 127.0.0.1', 21569))
finally:
s.close()
del s

if __name__ == '__main__':
print 'starting'
try:
while 1:
conn()
finally:
print 'done'
-Peter

[kasper graversen]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:36:44 -0400, Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp. com> wrote:

> I've been searching the web (including the www.python.org :) but in

vain of

> finding recent documentation for the python MOP. I see some

information on

> python 1.5---is this the best and still valid information today?

Erm, what's "MOP" mean? The current python is 2.3, and should probably
be
used everywhere possible (1.5 is seriously seriously old)

(Among, likely, other problems) 2.3 has a memory leak that could cause
long-running network programs to have difficulties. It has been fixed
in CVS, so 2.3.1 will doubtless be better in this area, but some people
should definitely *not* be upgrading to 2.3 just yet.

what has all this talk to do with documentation of the MOP???

[Ng Pheng Siong]

According to Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp. com>:

kasper graversen wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:36:44 -0400, Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp. com> wrote:

> Erm, what's "MOP" mean?

what has all this talk to do with documentation of the MOP???

Er, if you'll look back, you'll see that Anthony asked what MOP
meant

Meta Object Protocol.
--
Ng Pheng Siong <ng**@netmemeti c.com>

http://firewall.rulemaker.net -+- Manage Your Firewall Rulebase Changes
http://sandbox.rulemaker.net/ngps -+- Open Source Python Crypto & SSL

[Peter Hansen]

Ng Pheng Siong wrote:

According to Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp. com>:

kasper graversen wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:36:44 -0400, Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp. com> wrote:
>> Erm, what's "MOP" mean?
what has all this talk to do with documentation of the MOP???

Er, if you'll look back, you'll see that Anthony asked what MOP
meant

Meta Object Protocol.

Thanks, but one might say that this is what it spells, not what it _means_.

At this point, I'm sure google would help, if I felt a driving
need to go and learn what it really means.

-Peter

[Jacek Generowicz]

Anthony Baxter <an*****@interl ink.com.au> writes:

Erm, what's "MOP" mean?

Meta Object Protocol.

[Peter Hansen]

Peter Hansen wrote:

Ng Pheng Siong wrote:

According to Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp. com>:

kasper graversen wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:36:44 -0400, Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp. com> wrote:
> >> Erm, what's "MOP" mean?
> what has all this talk to do with documentation of the MOP???
Er, if you'll look back, you'll see that Anthony asked what MOP
meant

Meta Object Protocol.

Thanks, but one might say that this is what it spells, not what it _means_.

At this point, I'm sure google would help, if I felt a driving
need to go and learn what it really means.

Annoyed that nobody seemed to be willing to actually define this (which
leads me to suspect that none of those involved in the thread actually
*know* what it means, other than to expand the acronym), I did a little
searching and found http://cliki.tunes.org/Meta-Object%20Protocol , which
at least attempts to define it. It still doesn't describe it well enough
for someone to really understand the purpose, the value, the reason for
bothering to do such a thing, but it's better than the definitions offered
so far in this thread...

-Peter