On 20 Oct. 2016, at 08:54, Glyph Lefkowitz <glyph@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
On Oct 19, 2016, at 2:47 PM, Itamar Turner-Trauring <itamar@itamarst.org <mailto:itamar@itamarst.org>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 05:45 PM, Itamar Turner-Trauring wrote:
Well... I had a test that went through synchronous Deferred path. And yeah, it was easier to write than async test. But it failed to catch a bug that was only in async case. So the problem I see is that supporting both in Deferred means you need twice the number of tests each time you use Deferreds.
Er, that was unclear. I had a bug that wasn't caught by tests because it passed with sync Deferred and failed with async Deferred callback, and I didn't have tests for latter.
To be clear: I do see this as a downside to Deferred's architecture; it's a tradeoff. I see the loose coupling with the event loop as a worthwhile upside.
One thing that I have still not figured out is how Futures (which are tightly tied to an event loop) will possibly ever work over multiple event loops. I think since you can't really chain them, this is less of a problem, but Deferreds like to absorb other Deferreds and make one big one, which would make the tight coupling problematic if you wanted to use two event loops (like, say, a GTK one and an IOCP one on Windows). - Amber
However, it's totally possible to write the async Deferred callback case as well, just by having the test fire the Deferred after returning to the test body instead of firing it before :-).
-glyph _______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python