At 10:59 AM 3/7/2010 -0800, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>So is it that you just don't like the idea of blocking, and want to
>stop anything that relies on it from getting into the standard library?
Um, no. As I said before, call it a "parallel task queue" or
"parallel task manager" or something to that general effect and I'm on board.
It may not be in the Zen of Python, but ISTM that names should
generally follow use cases. It is something of a corollary to "one
obvious way to do it", in that if you see something whose name
matches what you want to do, then it should be obvious that that's
the way in question. ;-)
The use cases for "parallel task queues", however, are a subset of
those for "futures" in the general case. Since the proposed module
addresses most of the former but very little of the latter, calling
it futures is inappropriate.
Specifically, it's:
1. Confusing to people who don't know what futures are (see e.g R.D.
Murray's post), and
2. Underpowered for people who expect/want a more fully-featured
futures system along the lines of E or Deferreds.
It seems that the only people for whom it's an intuitively correct
description are people who've only had experience with more limited
futures models (like Java's). However, these people should not have
a problem understanding the notion of parallel task queueing or task
management, so changing the name isn't really a loss for them, and
it's a gain for everybody else.
> Given the set_result and set_exception methods, it's pretty
> straightforward to fill in the value of a future from something
> that isn't purely computational.
Those are described as "internal" methods in the PEP; by contrast,
the Deferred equivalents are part of the public API.
> Given a way to register "on-done" callbacks with the future, it
> would be straightforward to wait for a future without blocking, too.
Yes, and with a few more additions besides that one, you might be on
the way to an actual competitor for Deferreds. For example: retry
support, chaining, logging, API for transparent result processing,
coroutine support, co-ordination tools like locks, sempaphores and queues, etc.
These are all things you would very likely want or need if you
actually wanted to write a program using futures as *your main
computational model*, vs. just needing to toss out some parallel
tasks in a primarily synchronous program.
Of course, Deferreds are indeed overkill if all you're ever going to
want is a few parallel tasks, unless you're already skilled in using
Twisted or some wrapper for it.
So, I totally support having a simple task queue in the stdlib, as
there are definitely times I would've used such a thing for a quick
script, if it were available.
However, I've *also* had use cases for using futures as a
computational model, and so that's what I originally thought this PEP
was about. After the use cases were clarified, though, it seems to
me that *calling* it futures is a bad idea, because it's really just
a nice task queuing system.
I'm +1 on adding a nice task queuing system, -1 on calling it by any
other name. ;-)
