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

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Wed May 26 15:48:24 CEST 2010

On 26/05/10 23:29, Brian Quinlan wrote:

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

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).

I would say it is precisely that extra configurability which separates the executor pools in the PEP implementation from more flexible general purpose pools.

It's something to investigate somewhere along the line, but, as Jesse pointed out, not something we need to worry about specifically for this PEP (except as an example of another module that may eventually end up in the concurrent package)

Cheers, Nick.

-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list