Jason Tackaberry wrote: > As I understand what you wrote, it sounds ok to me. I've never used > ThreadCallback so I don't know why you would use it over Thread. If > they basically do the same thing, let's merge them.
They do similar things. If you use a Thread, it will be started on start() and do its job. The ThreadCallback gets a thread name to execute it. So when you have 100 functions you want to call in a thread, a Thread will spawn 100 threads while a ThreadCallback can handle all in one thread or split them into two. I have to think about if and how to make both classes one. >> And why do we call MainThreadCallback using __call__? OK, we do the >> same for Callback, but MainThreadCallback takes some time. Maybe the >> function should be called start, too. > > IMHO anything with 'Callback' in the name must be callable. In > particular the cool thing about MainThreadCallback is that now we have a > callable that will execute in the mainthread. We can pass this to > anything that accepts a callable, notably signal.connect. I understand > the logic behind your suggestion but I think it makes _more_ sense for > MainThreadCallback to behave like the other Callback classes, which it > does, which is good. :) OK, in that case ThreadCallback is a bad name because it needs a start function. Dischi -- "Alcohol doesn't solve any problem...but fuck it neither does milk" --- A wise man?
pgpS9aHstgXKL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ Freevo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-devel
