On 7 Nov 2009, at 22:06, Paul Moore wrote:
2009/11/7 Jesse Noller <jnol...@gmail.com>:
I obviously tend to agree with Brian; I know I've personally had to
implement things like this plenty of times, it's relatively simple
once you do it once or twice. This is a nice bit of syntactic sugar
on
top of the threading/multiprocessing modules.
I agree. I've implemented futures a few times, and I'd be very glad
not to have to again. I'll certainly check out the package, but I'd
like to see the functionality in the stdlib.
I'm not convinced it should go in multiprocessing, though. After all,
it uses threading rather than multiple processes.
Actually, you can choose weather to use threads or processes. The
current implementation includes a ThreadPoolExecutor and a
ProcessPoolExecutor (which is an argument to making it a separate
package) and should be abstract enough to accommodate other strategies
in the future.
Java, for example,
Cheers,
Brian
_______________________________________________
stdlib-sig mailing list
stdlib-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
