On 27/05/10 09:36, Greg Ewing wrote:
Brian Quinlan wrote:
I think that Jesse was planning to add some functionality to this
namespace.
Even if that happens, the existing threading and multiprocessing
modules would remain outside of it.
You could have general thread pools that aren't related to executors
Yes, but it should be fairly obvious that the ones defined
in the futures module have to do with futures. Namespaces are
only a honking great idea if you actually let them do the job
they're designed for.
futures.ThreadPoolExecutor would likely be refactored to inherit from
the mooted pool.ThreadPool. I'd like to leave that option open, and
having two classes with the same name from different modules in a single
inheritance tree is one of the places where module namespacing still
isn't quite as tidy as we might wish.
I'd also consider a simple thread pool and an actual executor different
things. I'm fine with the longer names, but if I was going to drop a
word from the names, it would actually be "Pool" (i.e. ThreadExecutor,
ProcessExecutor).
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
