[Python-ideas] Tulip / PEP 3156 - subprocess events

[Greg Ewing]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I like everyone using the same names for these
> callback methods, so that a reader (who is familiar with the
> transport/protocol API) can instantly know what kind of callback it is
> and what its arguments are.

You don't seem to follow this philosophy anywhere else in
the PEP, though. In all the other places a callback is
specified, you get to pass in an arbitrary function.
The PEP offers no rationale as to why transports should
be the odd one out.

> You can write an alternative framework using coroutines and callbacks,
> bypassing transports and protocols. (You'll still need Futures.)
> However you'd be missing the interoperability offered by the
> protocol/transport abstractions: in an IOCP world you'd have to
> interact with the event loop's callbacks differently than in a
> select/poll/etc. world.

I was hoping there would be a slightly higher-level layer,
that provides a coroutine interface but hides the platform
differences.

What would you think of the idea of making the Transport
objects themselves fill both roles, by having read_async
and write_async methods? They wouldn't have to do any
buffering, I'd be happy to wrap another object around it
if I wanted that.

-- 
Greg