On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Le Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:03:35 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin <brian.curtin@gmail.com> wrote:
Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move things in the future [0], which would be now.
As Jesse said, moving multiprocessing or threading wholesale was never part of the plan. The main motivator of that comment in PEP 3148 was the idea of creating 'concurrent.pool', which would provide a concurrent worker pool API modelled on multiprocessing.Pool that supported either threads or processes as the back end, just like the executor model in concurrent.futures.
Executors *are* pools, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, that's the point. A developer shouldn't be forced into using a particular invocation model (i.e. futures) just to get thread or process pool functionality - the pool should be a lower layer building block that's provided separately. As you say, though, nobody has stepped up for the task of actually defining that common, lower level interface. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia