[Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

[Nick Coghlan]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin <brian.curtin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for multiprocessing
> to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move things in the future
> [0], which would be now.

As Jesse said, moving multiprocessing or threading wholesale was never
part of the plan. The main motivator of that comment in PEP 3148 was
the idea of creating 'concurrent.pool', which would provide a
concurrent worker pool API modelled on multiprocessing.Pool that
supported either threads or processes as the back end, just like the
executor model in concurrent.futures.

The basic approach is to look at a feature in threading or
multiprocessing that is only available in one of them and ask the
question: Does it make sense to allow a project to switch easily
between a threading strategy and a multiprocessing strategy when using
this feature?

If the answer to that question is yes (as it was for
concurrent.futures itself, and as I believe it to be for
multiprocessing.Pool), then a feature request (and probably a PEP)
proposing the definition of a common API in the concurrent namespace
would be appropriate.

Cheers,
Nick.

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