On 2018-10-21 22:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:58:05 +0200
Vladimir Filipović <hemf...@gmail.com>
wrote:
To anticipate a couple more possible questions:
- What would this proposal do about multiple producers/consumers
needing to jointly decide _when_ to close the queue?
Explicitly nothing.
The queue's state is either closed or not, and it doesn't care who
closed it. It needs to interact correctly with multiple consumers and
multiple producers, but once any one piece of code closes it, the
correct interaction is acting like a closed queue for everybody.
Ah. This is the one statement that makes me favorable to this idea.
When there is a single consumer, it's easy enough to send a sentinel.
But when there are multiple consumers, suddenly you must send exactly
the right number of sentinels (which means you also have to careful
keep track of their number, which isn't always easy). There's some
delicate code doing exactly that in concurrent.futures.
You don't need more than one sentinel. When a consumer sees the
sentinel, it just needs to put it back for the other consumers.
[snip]
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
