On 9 Mar 2010, at 08:39, Greg Ewing wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
Looking more close, I gather that the prime results will be printed
'in order' (waiting on each even if others are done) while the url
results will be printed 'as available'.
Seems to me that if you care about the order of the results,
you should be able to just wait for each result separately
in the order you want them. Something like
task1 = start_task(proc1)
task2 = start_task(proc2)
task3 = start_task(proc3)
result1 = task1.wait_for_result()
result2 = task2.wait_for_result()
result3 = task3.wait_for_result()
You can write this as:
executor = ...
future1 = executor.submit(proc1)
future2 = executor.submit(proc2)
future3 = executor.submit(proc3)
result1 = task1.result()
result2 = task2.result()
result3 = task3.result()
This would also be a natural way to write things even if
you don't care about the order, but you need all the results
before proceeding. You're going to be held up until the
longest-running task completes anyway, so it doesn't matter
if some of them finish earlier and have to sit around
waiting for you to collect the result.
Often you don't want to continue if there is a failure.
In the example that you gave, if "proc3" raises an exception
immediately, you still wait for "proc1" and "proc2" to complete even
though you will end up discarding their results.
Cheers,
Brian
_______________________________________________
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
