Home Original page

Standard Asynchronous Python

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Mon Sep 10 12:21:11 EDT 2012 
On 9/10/2012 7:36 AM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> The responses have certainly highlighted some errors in emphasis in my approach.
>
> * My idea is to propose a design PEP. (Steven, Dennis) I'm not at
> *all* suggesting including uthreads in the standard library.  It's a
> toy implementation I used to develop my ideas.  I think of this as a
> much smaller idea in the same vein as the DBAPI (PEP 249): a common
> set of expectations that allows portability.

That has been very successful.

> * I'd like to set aside the issue of threads vs. event-driven
> programming.  There are legitimate reasons to do both, and the healthy
> ecosystem of frameworks for the latter indicates at least some people
> are interested.  My idea is to introduce a tiny bit of coherence
> across those frameworks.

I think many developers recognize that some improvment in coherence 
would be a good idea. I occasionally read that *someone* is working on 
common event loop approach, though it has not materialized yet.

> I will need to take up the details of the idea with the developers of
> the async frameworks themselves, and get some agreement before
> actually proposing the PEP.  However, among this group I'm interested
> to know whether this is an appropriate use of a design PEP.

I think so.

 > That's why I posted my old and flawed PEP text, rather than re-drafting
> first.

I think you should do a bit of editing now, even if not a full redraft.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-list mailing list