On 02:10 am, br...@sweetapp.com wrote:
On 7 Mar 2010, at 03:04, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 05:32 AM 3/6/2010, Brian Quinlan wrote:
Using twisted (or any other asynchronous I/O framework) forces you to
rewrite your I/O code. Futures do not.
Twisted's "Deferred" API has nothing to do with I/O.
I see, you just mean the API and not the underlying model.
We discussed the Deferred API on the stdlib-sig and I don't think that
anyone expressed a preference for it over the one described in the PEP.
Do you have any concrete criticism?
From reading some of the stdlib-sig archives, it sounds like there is
general agreement that Deferreds and Futures can be used to complement
each other, and that getting code that is primarily Deferred-based to
integrate with Future-based code or vice versa should eventually be
possible.
Do I have the right sense of people's feelings?
And relatedly, once Futures are accepted and implemented, are people
going to use them as an argument to exclude Deferreds from the stdlib
(or be swayed by other people making such arguments)? Hopefully not,
given what I read on stdlib-sig, but it doesn't hurt to check...
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
