On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 12:01 +0100, Dirk Meyer wrote: > attached a patch how I think a BackgroundTask should look like. I > added BackgroundTask to async.py and use it in Process and > Thread. Tell me what you think.
Ok, will have a look some time today. > On a site-notice: We have Thread() that has a start() function. This > class calls a function in a new thread. This class is a > BackgroundTask. On the other side we have ThreadCallback which has a > register function to schedule the task in a thread with a given > name. This object is an InProgress object. This is confusing. First of > all ThreadCallback should be a BackgroundTask _having_ an InProgress > object. I also think 'register' should be called 'schedule' or even > better, try to merge Thread and ThreadCallback. As I understand what you wrote, it sounds ok to me. I've never used ThreadCallback so I don't know why you would use it over Thread. If they basically do the same thing, let's merge them. > And why do we call MainThreadCallback using __call__? OK, we do the > same for Callback, but MainThreadCallback takes some time. Maybe the > function should be called start, too. IMHO anything with 'Callback' in the name must be callable. In particular the cool thing about MainThreadCallback is that now we have a callable that will execute in the mainthread. We can pass this to anything that accepts a callable, notably signal.connect. I understand the logic behind your suggestion but I think it makes _more_ sense for MainThreadCallback to behave like the other Callback classes, which it does, which is good. :) Jason. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Freevo-devel mailing list Freevo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-devel
