On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:19:50 +1000
Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> futures.ThreadPoolExecutor would likely be refactored to inherit from
> the mooted pool.ThreadPool.
There still doesn't seem to be reason to have two different thread pool
APIs, though. Shouldn't there be one obvious way to do it?
> 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).
To me, ThreadPool looks a lot more obvious than ThreadExecutor
("obvious" in that I can easily find it again, and I don't need to
read some documentation to know what it is).
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
