[Python-Dev] A better popen2

[Bob Ippolito]

On Jun 24, 2004, at 3:16 PM, P at draigBrady.com wrote:

> I've written a couple of apps that required
> running a command and grabbing the output,
> and I've found the existing interfaces problematic for this.
>
> I think the proliferation of functions and classes
> in the popen2 module illustrates the problem
> (popen2.{popen2,popen3,popen4,Popen3,Popen4})
> Now if I want to read both stdout and stderr
> seperately then it's awkward to say the least
> to implement that without deadlocking using
> the popen2 module. Also the multiplexing of
> stdout and stderr in popen4 and commands.getoutput
> is not usually what one requires IMHO.
>
> There are external solutions like the getCommandOutput recipe:
> http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/52296
> which has problems that I've commented on there.
> There are also very complex solutions like "subproc" from
> Ken Manheimer and "task" from Rob Hooft
>
> Therefore I bit the bullet and wrote my own,
> with as simple an interface as I thought possible:
> http://www.pixelbeat.org/libs/subProcess.py
>
> Perhaps this could be included in commands.py for e.g.?

There's already a PEP and implementation for a new popen-ish module 
that supersedes all of them and probably covers all of your needs (I've 
already used it in several projects and it's worked great):
	http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0324.html

-bob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2357 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040625/255aaaf9/smime.bin