On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 4:19 PM Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > On 21/04/20 8:29 am, Eric Snow wrote: > > * Would a low-level channel implementation based on callbacks or locks > > be better (simpler, faster, etc.) than one based on buffering? > > Depends on what you mean by "better". Callbacks are more > versatile; a buffered channel just does buffering, but > with callbacks you can do other things, e.g. hooking > into an event loop.
Thanks for clarifying. For the event loop case, what is the downside to adapting to the API in the existing proposal? > > * Would readiness callbacks in the high-level API be more or less > > user-friendly than alternatives: optional blocking, a lock, etc.? > > I would consider callbacks to be part of a low-level > layer that you wouldn't use directly most of the time. > Some user-friendly high-level things such as buffered > channels would be provided. Ah, PEP 554 is just about the high-level API. Currently in the low-level API recv() doesn't ever block (instead raising ChannelEmptyError if empty) and channel_send() returns a pre-acquired lock that releases once the object is received. I'm not opposed to a different low-level API, but keep in mind that we're short on time. > Efficiency is a secondary consideration. If it turns > out to be a problem, that can be addressed later. +1 -eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/FK4GTBHQARS7GOLGB6VOUDRM4LOLP366/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
