(original) (raw)

Oks. Thank you very much.


---
Daniel García (cr0hn)
Security researcher and ethical hacker

Personal site: http://cr0hn.com
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/garciagarciadaniel
Company: http://abirtone.com
Twitter: @ggdaniel

El día 18 de abril de 2016 a las 18:40:14, Guido van Rossum (guido@python.org) escrito:

A better place for this question would be the tulip Google group:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/python-tulip

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:05 AM, cr0hn <cr0hn@cr0hn.com> wrote:
Hi all,

It's the first time I write in this list. Sorry if it's not the best place for this question.

After I read the Asyncio's documentation, PEPs, Guido/Jesse/David Beazley articles/talks, etc, I developed a PoC library that mixes: Process + Threads + Asyncio Tasks, doing an scheme like this diagram:

main -> Process 1 -> Thread 1.1 -> Task 1.1.1

-> Task 1.1.2

-> Task 1.1.3


\-> Thread 1.2

->
Task 1.2.1

->
Task 1.2.2

->
Task 1.2.3


Process 2 \-> Thread 2.1 -> Task 2.1.1

->
Task 2.1.2

->
Task 2.1.3


\-> Thread 2.2

->
Task 2.2.1

->
Task 2.2.2

->
Task 2.2.3


In my local tests, this approach appear to improve (and simplify) the concurrency/parallelism for some tasks but, before release the library at github, I don't know if my aproach is wrong and I would appreciate your opinion.

Thank you very much for your time.

Regards!

--
Daniel García a.k.a. cr0hn - Security researcher and pentester
@ggdaniel

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
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/guido%40python.org





\--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)