[issue23697] Module level map & submit for concurrent.futures

2019-05-06 Thread Josh Rosenberg
Josh Rosenberg added the comment: For the process based versions, it makes it too easy to accidentally fork bomb yourself, since each process that call psubmit would implicitly created another #CPUs workers of its own, so a process based version Brian's case with a mere four top-level

[issue23697] Module level map & submit for concurrent.futures

2019-05-06 Thread Brian Quinlan
Brian Quinlan added the comment: Using a default executor could be dangerous because it could lead to deadlocks. For example: mylib.py def my_func(): tsubmit(...) tsubmit(...) tsubmit(somelib.some_func, ...) somelib.py -- def some_func(): tsubmit(...) # Potential

[issue23697] Module level map submit for concurrent.futures

2015-03-18 Thread Ned Deily
Changes by Ned Deily n...@acm.org: -- nosy: +bquinlan ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue23697 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue23697] Module level map submit for concurrent.futures

2015-03-17 Thread Nick Coghlan
New submission from Nick Coghlan: Currently, concurrent.futures requires you to explicitly create and manage the lifecycle of a dedicated executor to handle multithreaded and multiprocess dispatch of concurrent activities. It may be beneficial to provide module level tmap(), pmap(), tsubmit()