Ross Lagerwall <rosslagerw...@gmail.com> added the comment: > Personally, I would factor out the code for Popen.communicate() in to a > > Communicator class which wraps a Popen object and has a method > > communicate(input, timeout=None) -> (bytes_written, output, error)
How would this differ from the normal communicate()? It seems like there are two different ideas for why people want an "asynchronous subprocess": One is that they want to use communicate() but not be limited by memory issues. I think a good API for this case is an asyncore style API or like the one from the patch in issue1260171. Another use case is for an expect-type interface where you read and write based on a timeout or some kind of delimiter like a newline. These should probably be addressed independently. See also issue10482. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1191964> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
