Yury Selivanov added the comment: > There are other implementations of asyncio than the one in CPython. > Pulsar and Tornado define their own Task class. The greenio project
I'm not sure if it's possible (or even makes any sense) to integrate tasks from other frameworks into asyncio. greenio simply inherits its task class from asyncio.Task, and will automatically support concurrent.futures if we support them in asyncio. > I'm not opposed to support concurrent.futures.Future object. I don't > like the idea of starting to add a special case for one module. Others > may want to do the same for their library. concurrent.futures is in a unique position -- it's already supported and integrated in asyncio. We have executors and they are even used for DNS lookups. Supporting concurrent.futures in asyncio.Task seems natural to me. I like Alex's approach -- his idea of '__await__' for concurrent.Future is very generic, so any other framework can integrate it. Creating any kind of registry in asyncio.Task seems a bit unnecessary to me at this stage. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue24383> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
