On 26/04/15 23:24, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 27 Apr 2015 07:50, "Mark Shannon" <m...@hotpy.org
<mailto:m...@hotpy.org>> wrote:
> On 26/04/15 21:40, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>>
>> But it's hard. Iterating through something asynchronously? Write a
>> 'while True' loop. Instead of 1 line you now have 5 or 6. Want to
>> commit your database transaction? Instead of 'async with' you will
>> write 'try..except..finally' block, with a very high probability to
>> introduce a bug, because you don't rollback or commit properly or
>> propagate exception.
>
> I don't see why you can't do transactions using a 'with' statement.
Because you need to pass control back to the event loop from the
*__exit__* method in order to wait for the commit/rollback operation
without blocking the scheduler. The "with (yield from cm())" formulation
doesn't allow either __enter__ *or* __exit__ to suspend the coroutine to
wait for IO, so you have to do the IO up front and return a fully
synchronous (but still non-blocking) CM as the result.
True. The 'with' statement cannot support this use case, but
try-except can do the job:
trans = yield from db_conn.transaction()
try:
...
except:
yield from trans.roll_back()
raise
yield from trans.commit()
Admittedly not as elegant as the 'with' statement, but perfectly readable.
We knew about these problems going into PEP 3156
(http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/pep_ideas/async_programming.html#using-special-methods-in-explicitly-asynchronous-code)
so it's mainly a matter of having enough experience with asyncio now to
be able to suggest specific syntactic sugar to make the right way and
the easy way the same way.
asyncio is just one module amongst thousands, does it really justify
special syntax?
Cheers,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
