On 26/05/10 23:29, Brian Quinlan wrote:
On 26 May 2010, at 22:50, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I think I'm a bit ignorant, but how is the Executor abstraction (and
its proposed implementations) not generic enough? You have a pool,
submit one or several tasks, and can either repeatedly poll for
completion or do a blocking wait.
(after all, Glyph pointed out that it should be quite easy to wrap the
resulting Futures into Deferred objects)
Interesting. Executor.submit() return a Future, which might not be
useful in some ThreadPool fire-and-forget use cases but having them
doesn't seem harmful.
Java does take this approach and it gives you a lot more ways to
customize the Executor thread pool i.e. the minimum number of threads
running, the maximum number, the amount of time that a thread can be
idle before it is killed, the queueing strategy to use (e.g. LIFO, FIFO,
priority).
I would say it is precisely that extra configurability which separates
the executor pools in the PEP implementation from more flexible general
purpose pools.
It's something to investigate somewhere along the line, but, as Jesse
pointed out, not something we need to worry about specifically for this
PEP (except as an example of another module that may eventually end up
in the concurrent package)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
