| 1 |
On 08/22/2016 03:18 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 21/08/16 00:18, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> This emulates the |
| 4 |
>> asyncio.AbstractEventLoop.run_until_complete(future) interface |
| 5 |
> What's that, and why are we emulating it instead of just using it? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
We will be able to use it with python 3.4 and later, but not with older |
| 8 |
versions of python. Also, we have some more work to do first: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
* Migrate all internal use of the EventLoop.iteration method to the new |
| 11 |
run_until_complete(future) method, and remove the EventLoop.iteration |
| 12 |
method (or make it private as long as it's needed to implement |
| 13 |
run_until_complete for older python versions). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
* Implement all EventLoop methods using asyncio.AbstractEventLoop |
| 16 |
methods (but keep existing implementations for use with older python). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
>> which will make it possible to reduce latency in situations where it |
| 19 |
>> is desirable for a loop to exit at the earliest opportunity. |
| 20 |
> It makes it possible -- okay. But does it? I'm reluctant to change |
| 21 |
> things willy nilly, and add SLOCs, without a tangible benefit. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Having a migration path to asyncio is the most tangible benefit, since |
| 24 |
it allows us to rely on a standard library instead of our own internal |
| 25 |
event loop implementation. I mention latency since it's a clear |
| 26 |
advantage of the run_until_complete API (at least in theory). |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
Zac |
Archives