{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tailhook/stator/issues/1","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tailhook/stator","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tailhook/stator/issues/1/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tailhook/stator/issues/1/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tailhook/stator/issues/1/events","html_url":"https://github.com/tailhook/stator/issues/1","id":151484312,"number":1,"title":"Avoid using CBOR?","user":{"login":"defyrlt","id":7937837,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7937837?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt","html_url":"https://github.com/defyrlt","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/defyrlt/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":5,"created_at":"2016-04-27T20:35:24Z","updated_at":"2016-04-27T22:12:17Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Is this possible? Why not just create some [Py_buffer](https://docs.python.org/3.5/c-api/buffer.html) objects and pass them to Python code? AFAIK GIL will be acquired for Python allocation, but I _think_ that overall performance can get better. Or is it actually better to deserialize CBOR in Python than acquire GIL (and interrupt ongoing Python thread's job)?"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tailhook/stator/issues/comments/215247393","html_url":"https://github.com/tailhook/stator/issues/1#issuecomment-215247393","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tailhook/stator/issues/1","id":215247393,"user":{"login":"tailhook","id":321799,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/321799?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook","html_url":"https://github.com/tailhook","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tailhook/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-04-27T22:12:17Z","updated_at":"2016-04-27T22:12:17Z","body":"Cool idea would be to try to integrate stator's http with aiohttp. I.e. to seamlessly switch aiohttp application to use stator. This would allow to have routing, cookie handling and other things for free.\r\n\r\nSimilar thing can be done with redis. I don't want to reimplement all the redis methods in stator, but wrap aio-redis to provide higher level methods and use the stator behind the scenes.\r\n\r\nMore complex thing would be to make wrapping around HTTP client (we only have a server so far, but there is client implementation in rotor-http).\r\n\r\nAnother interesting idea is to try integrate gevent (or just greenlets?), just to try what's the difference between stator/asyncio and stator/greenlets."}}