On 2/15/07, Joachim König-Baltes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam Olsen schrieb: > > I don't think we're on the same page then. The way I see it you want > > a single async IO implementation shared by everything while having a > > collection of event loops that cooperate "just enough". The async IO > > itself would likely end up being done in C. > > > No, I'd like to have: > > - An interface for a task to specifiy the events it's interested in, and > waiting > for at least one of the events (with a timeout). > - an interface for creating a task (similar to creating a thread) > - an interface for a schedular to manage the tasks
My tasks are transient and only wait on one thing at a time (if not waiting for the scheduler to let them run!). I have my own semantics for creating tasks that incorporate exception propagation. My exception propagation (and return handling) require a scheduler with specific support for them. Net result is that I'd have to wrap all you provide, if not monkey-patching it because it doesn't provide the interfaces to let me wrap it properly. All I want is a global select.poll() object that all the event loops can hook into and each will get a turn to run after each call. Well, that, plus I want it to work around all the platform-specific peculiarities. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
