[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement (original) (raw)

Brian Quinlan brian at sweetapp.com
Wed May 26 15:29:05 CEST 2010

On 26 May 2010, at 22:50, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:32:33 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

Ha, I'm a bit surprised. Isn't it what "futures" already provides? (except that for some reason it insists on the "SomeExecutor" naming scheme) http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3148/#processpoolexecutor Not really - a general purpose pool would be a lot more agnostic about how you give the pooled threads/processes work to do and get the results back. Executors are the kind of thing you would build on top of one though. If concurrent.pool was added, then the existing processing pools in multiprocessing and the executors in concurrent.future would be the first use cases for it. I think I'm a bit ignorant, but how is the Executor abstraction (and its proposed implementations) not generic enough? You have a pool, submit one or several tasks, and can either repeatedly poll for completion or do a blocking wait. (after all, Glyph pointed out that it should be quite easy to wrap the resulting Futures into Deferred objects)

Interesting. Executor.submit() return a Future, which might not be
useful in some ThreadPool fire-and-forget use cases but having them
doesn't seem harmful.

Java does take this approach and it gives you a lot more ways to
customize the Executor thread pool i.e. the minimum number of threads
running, the maximum number, the amount of time that a thread can be
idle before it is killed, the queueing strategy to use (e.g. LIFO,
FIFO, priority).

Cheers, Brian

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list