STINNER Victor added the comment:
Since there is already an open issue suggesting to document AbstractServer (and
Server), I close this issue.
The original bug was fixed: BaseEventLoop is now part of the asyncio namespace.
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
STINNER Victor added the comment:
See also the Documentation: document AbstractServer, Server.sockets is
specific to asyncio event loops issue:
https://code.google.com/p/tulip/issues/detail?id=188
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Guido van Rossum added the comment:
Sure. I already said LGTM on the patch
(http://bugs.python.org/issue23046#msg232783).
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23046
___
STINNER Victor added the comment:
What do you think of my first change, base_event_loop.patch, which exposes
BaseEventLoop? I'm going to commit it if nobody reviews it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23046
Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset ddf6b78faed9 by Victor Stinner in branch '3.4':
Issue #23046: Expose the BaseEventLoop class in the asyncio namespace
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ddf6b78faed9
--
nosy: +python-dev
___
Python
STINNER Victor added the comment:
I'm in favor of exposing BaseEventLoop in the asyncio namespace directly
(asyncio.BaseEventLoop) because I'm using it in various asyncio projects, and I
don't like having to use submodules. I consider asyncio.base_events as the
private API.
--
Guido van Rossum added the comment:
OK, fine to expose the BaseEventLoop class.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:45 PM, STINNER Victor rep...@bugs.python.org
wrote:
STINNER Victor added the comment:
I'm in favor of exposing BaseEventLoop in the asyncio namespace directly
(asyncio.BaseEventLoop)
STINNER Victor added the comment:
Here is a patch to expose BaseEventLoop. It removes Server from
base_events.__all__, which means that from asyncio.base_events import * will
no import Server anymore. Can it break real applications?
--
keywords: +patch
Added file:
Guido van Rossum added the comment:
Sounds unlikely. If they write from asyncio.base_events import Server it
will still work. Only if they wrote from asyncio.base_events import *
will they be broken, and that sounds not worth worrying about. So LGTM on
the patch. (But why was Server there at
STINNER Victor added the comment:
why was Server there at all? Tests?
If you cannot answer, who can answer? :-)
https://code.google.com/p/tulip/source/detail?r=f136c04d82c0 (You
added Server to __all__.)
I don't see any use case which needs to create explicitly a Server
class. There are the
Guido van Rossum added the comment:
Heh. Well I don't remember why I did that any more, and it doesn't seem to
matter now.
However the doc issue seems different than for BaseEventLoop -- Server is
the *concrete* class (it actually gets instantiated, not a subclass). We
could instead document
New submission from Martin Panter:
The documentation mentions BaseEventLoop as an attribute of the “asyncio”
module, but it is not actually there (at least in v3.4.2). I have to import it
specially from “asyncio.base_events”. Is this an oversight in the
documentation, or am I relying on
12 matches
Mail list logo
