On 29 August 2016 at 15:53, Thales filizola costa <thale...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > I have just checked all the links you posted, they are indeed very > interesting and very efficient. However, I think those are very complicate > in terms of installation and setup, and I still see a lot of usages for a > multi-process scheduler.
Potentially, but one of the big challenges you'll face is to establish how it differs from using asyncio in the current process to manage tasks dispatched to other processes via run_in_executor, and when specifically it would be useful thing for a developer to have in the builtin toolkit (vs being something they can install from PyPI). Don't get me wrong, I think it's really cool that you were able to implement this - there's just a big gap between "implementing this was useful to me" and "this is sufficiently useful in a wide enough range of cases not otherwise addressed by the standard library that it should be added as a new standard application building block". Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
