+1000

Can we dream with gevent integrated to standard cpython ? This would be a fantastic path for 3.4 :)

And I definitely should move to 3.x.

Because for web programming, I just can't think another way to program using python. I'm seeing some people going to other languages where async is more easy like Go (some are trying Erlang). Async is a MUST HAVE for web programming these days...

In my experience, I've found that "robustness of cooperative multithreading" come at the price of a code difficult to maintain. And, in single threading it never reach the SMP benefits with easy. Thats why erlang shines... it abstracts the hard work of to maintain the switching under control. Gevent walks the same line: makes the programmer life easier.

--
  Carlo Pires


2012/10/6 Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>
This is an incredibly important discussion.

I would like to contribute despite my limited experience with the
various popular options. My own async explorations are limited to the
constraints of the App Engine runtime environment, where a rather
unique type of reactor is required. I am developing some ideas around
separating reactors, futures, and yield-based coroutines, but they
take more thinking and probably some experimental coding before I'm
ready to write it up in any detail. For a hint on what I'm after, you
might read up on monocle (https://github.com/saucelabs/monocle) and my
approach to building coroutines on top of Futures
(http://code.google.com/p/appengine-ndb-experiment/source/browse/ndb/tasklets.py#349).

In the mean time I'd like to bring up a few higher-order issues:

(1) How importance is it to offer a compatibility path for asyncore? I
would have thought that offering an integration path forward for
Twisted and Tornado would be more important.

(2) We're at a fork in the road here. On the one hand, we could choose
to deeply integrate greenlets/gevents into the standard library. (It's
not monkey-patching if it's integrated, after all. :-) I'm not sure
how this would work for other implementations than CPython, or even
how to address CPython on non-x86 architectures. But users seem to
like the programming model: write synchronous code, get async
operation for free. It's easy to write protocol parsers that way. On
the other hand, we could reject this approach: the integration would
never be completely smooth, there's the issue of other implementations
and architectures, it probably would never work smoothly even for
CPython/x86 when 3rd party extension modules are involved.
Callback-based APIs don't have these downsides, but they are harder to
program; however we can make programming them easier by using
yield-based coroutines. Even Twisted offers those (inline callbacks).

Before I invest much more time in these ideas I'd like to at least
have (2) sorted out.

--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas