On 27/05/10 12:29, Greg Ewing wrote:
On 27/05/10 01:48, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I would say it is precisely that extra configurability which separates
the executor pools in the PEP implementation from more flexible general
purpose pools.
Wouldn't this be better addressed by adding the relevant
options to the futures pools, rather than adding another
module that provides almost exactly the same thing with
different options?
It would depend on the details, but my instinct says no (instead, the
futures pools would be refactored to be task specific tailorings of the
general purpose pools).
However, this is all very hypothetical at this point and not really
relevant to the PEP review. We may never even bother creating these more
general purpose threading pools - it was just an example of the kind of
thing that may go alongside the futures module.
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
