On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:41:41 +1300 Greg Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
Richard Oudkerk wrote:
I don't see why a completion api needs to create wrappers for sockets. See
...
The AsyncIO class is independent of reactors, futures etc. The methods for starting an operation are
recv(key, sock, nbytes, flags=0) send(key, sock, buf, flags=0) accept(key, sock) connect(key, sock, address)
That looks awfully like a wrapper for a socket to me. All of those system calls are peculiar to sockets.
There doesn't necessarily have to be a wrapper class for each kind of file descriptor. There could be one I/O class that handles everything, or there could just be a collection of functions.
The point is that, with a completion-based model, you need a function or method for every possible system call that you might want to perform asynchronously.
There aren't that many of them, though: the four Richard listed should already be enough for most network applications, AFAIK. I really think Richard's proposal is a sane building block. Regards Antoine.