Changes by Tumer Topcu tum...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +tumert, zach.ware
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15983
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Tumer Topcu tum...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +trent
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15983
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Tumer Topcu added the comment:
Another option is instead of adding a timeout parameter, a new function to
check if everything is done. Like:
def all_tasks_finished(self)
return self._unfinished_tasks._semlock._is_zero()
Which can then be utilized exactly shown in the above noted
Richard Oudkerk added the comment:
I notice that queue.Queue.join() does not have a timeout parameter either.
Have you hit a particular problem that would be substantially easier with the
patch?
--
versions: -Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.3
___
Karl Bicker added the comment:
Actually, I would like to check if the threads working on the queue are still
alive.
However, it occurs to me now that I would need a facility to distinguish
between a timeout and an actual join. Unfortunately, my original patch does not
provide this, one
New submission from Karl Bicker:
The multiprocessing.JoinableQueue's function join() should have a timeout
argument so that one can check on other things while waiting for a queue to
finish.
As join() uses a condition to wait anyway, a timeout is easily implemented and
passed to the
Changes by Berker Peksag berker.pek...@gmail.com:
--
versions: -Python 3.1
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15983
___
___
Changes by Richard Oudkerk shibt...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +sbt
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15983
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
