On 27/05/10 10:29, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:19:50 +1000
Nick Coghlan<ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
futures.ThreadPoolExecutor would likely be refactored to inherit from
the mooted pool.ThreadPool.
There still doesn't seem to be reason to have two different thread pool
APIs, though. Shouldn't there be one obvious way to do it?
Executors and thread pools are not the same thing.
I might create a thread pool for *anything*. An executor will always
have a specific execution model associated with it (whether it be called
futures, as in this case, or runnables or something else).
This confusion is making me think that dropping the "Pool" from the
names might even be beneficial (since, to my mind, it currently
emphasises a largely irrelevant implementation detail).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
