[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

[Nick Coghlan]

On 27/05/10 12:29, Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 27/05/10 01:48, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> I would say it is precisely that extra configurability which separates
>> the executor pools in the PEP implementation from more flexible general
>> purpose pools.
>
> Wouldn't this be better addressed by adding the relevant
> options to the futures pools, rather than adding another
> module that provides almost exactly the same thing with
> different options?

It would depend on the details, but my instinct says no (instead, the 
futures pools would be refactored to be task specific tailorings of the 
general purpose pools).

However, this is all very hypothetical at this point and not really 
relevant to the PEP review. We may never even bother creating these more 
general purpose threading pools - it was just an example of the kind of 
thing that may go alongside the futures module.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------