Hi JP: Message: 1 Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:24:58 -0000 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [pypy-dev] Would the following shared memory model be possible? To: [email protected] Message-ID: <20100729212458.2188.24074246.divmod.xquotient...@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
On 08:39 pm, [email protected] wrote: > >Okay. I attended Ray's Hettinger's talk on Monocle. In the past >I have encountered situations where I bumped up with the nesting >problem. >If I recall, the problem involved request handlers that had a RPC style >AND made additional Twisted deferred calls: > >class MyRequestHandler(...): > > @defer.inlineCallbacks > def process(self): > try: > result = yield >client.getPage("http://www.google.com";) > except Exception, err: > log.err(err, "process getPage call >failed") > else: > # do some processing with the result > return result > >looks reasonable but Python will balk. JP>Aside from the "return result" (should be defer.returnValue(result), JP>generators can't return with a value), this looks fine to me too. Why JP>do you say Python will balk? Well the return with a value was the deal breaker. I used this example because this is where I came face-to-face with nested generators - and generated a mistrust for them in regard to exotic uses. There was something else about the real example (I am having a hard time finding the posts - somewhere in 2007) - I think it was a very early version of PyAMF and it really wanted a return (HTTP is okay). I believe under the hood, if the protocol returns a deferred or None, the reactor will expect further output in the future. Cheers, Andrew Cheers, Andrew _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
