On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> > wrote: > > Le Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:03:35 +1000, > > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin <brian.cur...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for > >> > multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or > move > >> > things in the future [0], which would be now. > >> > >> As Jesse said, moving multiprocessing or threading wholesale was never > >> part of the plan. The main motivator of that comment in PEP 3148 was > >> the idea of creating 'concurrent.pool', which would provide a > >> concurrent worker pool API modelled on multiprocessing.Pool that > >> supported either threads or processes as the back end, just like the > >> executor model in concurrent.futures. > > > > Executors *are* pools, so I don't know what you're talking about. > Also the Pool from multiprocessing "works" for threads and process: from multiprocessing.pool import Pool as ProcessPool from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool as ThreadPool
_______________________________________________ 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
