Mike Meyer wrote: > Bryan Olson writes: >>With Python threads/queues how do I wait for two queues (or >>locks or semaphores) at one call? (I know some methods to >>accomplish the same effect, but they suck.) > > By "not as good as", I meant the model they provide isn't as managable > as the one provided by Queue/Threading. Like async I/O, > Queue/Threading provides a better model at the cost of > generality.
I can't tell why you think that. > Instead of making vague assertions, why don't you provide us > with facts? Yeah, I'll keep doing that. You're the one proclaiming a 'model' to be more manageable with no evidence. > I.e. - what are the things you think are obvious that turned > out not to be true? Name some software that implements sophisticated > services that we can go look out. And so on... Thought we went over that. Look at the popular relational- database engines. Implementing such a service with one line of execution and async I/O is theoretically possible, but I've not heard of anyone who has managed to do it. MySQL, PostgreSQL, IBPhoenix, MaxDB, all have multiple simultaneous threads and/or processes (as do the competitive commercial database engines, though you can't look under the hood so easily). -- --Bryan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
