On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:33 PM Yury Selivanov <yseliva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately asyncio isn't super flexible around "cancellation with a > timeout" kind of scenarios. The current assumption is that once the > cancellation is requested, the Task will start cancelling and will do so in > a timely manner. Imposing a second layer of timeouts on the cancellation > process itself isn't natively supported. But to properly address this we > don't need a very broadly defined Task.set_exception(); we need to rethink > the cancellation in asyncio (perhaps draw some inspiration from Trio and > other frameworks). > What options have you already considered for asyncio's API? A couple naive things that occur to me are adding task.kill() with higher priority than task.cancel() (or equivalently task.graceful_cancel() with lower priority). Was task.cancel() meant more to have the meaning of "kill" or "graceful cancel"? In addition, the graceful version of the two (whichever that may be) could accept a timeout argument -- after which the exception of higher priority is raised. I realize this is a more simplistic model compared to the options trio is considering, but asyncio has already gone down the path of the simpler approach. --Chris > > Yury
_______________________________________________ Async-sig mailing list Async-sig@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/async-sig Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
