[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 324 (process module)

[Peter Astrand]

> ProcessProxy:
>     ...a behemoth using a thread for each of stdin/stdout/stderr to
>     allow the user to get an event-like IO interface.

Why not avoid threads on POSIX systems, and use select instead? My module
does, although it does not provide an event-like IO interface. If you get
rid of the threads, then you don't need the workaround code for Linux.


> Some of the large code size is _for_ execution through the shell. :)  I
> think that execution via the shell should be a feature of a module like
> this (so that users can use some shell features) and I even think that
> it should be the default (so that, for example, Windows users don't have
> to learn what cmd.exe or command.com are to run "dir"). However, I
> absolutely agree that one should be able to run withOUT the shell (i.e.
> have an option for this).

You're right. My module should probably have an option for invoking
through the shell, or at least document how to do it. I really don't want
it as default, though.


> Other reasons for the size/complexity of my process.py over yours:
> - My process objects have a .kill() method -- which is actually quite a
>   pain on Windows.

True. I guess my module would benefit from such a method as well.


> - My module includes some handling that for subsystem:windows vs.
>   subsystem:console apps on Windows that I don't think yours does.

Can you describe why this is needed/useful?


> > * The modules uses destructors, which I'm usually avoiding.
>
> Is that evil?

Destructors interferes with the GC. Someone else can probably fill in the
details.


> concensus. In the meantime, if you'd be willing to change your module's
> name to something other than process.py I think that would help
> discussions. (I don't know if that is a pain for you at this point. You
> mentioned "subprocess".

I can change, but I'd like more feedback before that. No-one has told me
their opinion on the name "subprocess", for example, not even you :-)


>Alternatively, how about "posixprocess"? Though,
> despite PEP 324's title, I don't know if that is completely accurate
> anymore.)

Oh, I've forgotten to change the title. Yes, this is wrong, because the
module certainly aims to work on non-POSIX systems as well (read:
Windows).


/Peter Åstrand <astrand at lysator.liu.se>