From alexandre.ferrieux@cnet.francetelecom.fr Mon May 22 03:40:13 2000 . . . > Alex, it's disappointing to me too! There just isn't anything > currently in the library to do this, and I haven't written apps that > needs this often enough to have a good feel for what kind of > abstraction is needed. Thanks for the empathy. Apologies for my slight overreaction. > However perhaps we can come up with a design for something better? Do > you have a suggestion here? Yup. One easy answer is 'just copy from Tcl'... Seriously, I'm really too new to Python to suggest the details or even the *style* of this 'level 2 API to multiplexing'. However, I can sketch the implementation since select() (from C or Tcl) is the one primitive I most depend on ! Basically, as shortly mentioned before, the key problem is the heterogeneity of seemingly-selectable things in Windoze. On unix, not only does select() work with all descriptor types on which it makes sense, but also the fd used by Xlib is accessible; hence clean multiplexing even with a GUI package is trivial. Now to the real (rotten) meat, that is M$'s. Facts: 1. 'Handle' types are not equal. Unnames pipes are (surprise!) not selectable. Why ? Ask a relative in Redmond... 2. 'Handle' types are not equal (bis). Socket 'handles' are *not* true handles. They are selectable, but for example you can't use'em for redirections. Okay in our case we don't care. I only mention it cause its scary and could pop back into your face some time later. 3. The GUI API doesn't expose a descriptor (handle), but fortunately (though disgustingly) there is a special syscall to wait on both "the message queue" and selectable handles: MsgWaitForMultipleObjects. So its doable, if not beautiful. The Tcl solution to (1.), which is the only real issue, is to have a separate thread blockingly read 1 byte from the pipe, and then post a message back to the main thread to awaken it (yes, ugly code to handle that extra byte and integrate it with the buffering scheme). In summary, why not peruse Tcl's hard-won experience on selecting-on-windoze-pipes ? Then, for the API exposed to the Python programmer, the Tclly exposed one is a starter: fileevent $channel readable|writable callback ... vwait breaker_variable Explanation for non-Tclers: fileevent hooks the callback, vwait does a loop of select(). The callback(s) is(are) called without breaking the loop, unless $breaker_variable is set, at which time vwait returns. One note about 'breaker_variable': I'm not sure I like it. I'd prefer something based on exceptions. I don't quite understand why it's not already this way in Tcl (which has (kindof) first-class exceptions), but let's not repeat the mistake: let's suggest that (the equivalent of) vwait loops forever, only to be broken out by an exception from within one of the callbacks. . . . I've copied everything Alex wrote, because he writes for me, also. As much as I welcome it, I can't answer Guido's question, "What should the API look like?" I've been mulling this over, and concluded I don't have sufficiently deep know- ledge to be trustworthy on this. Instead, I'll just give a bit of personal testimony. I made the rather coy c.l.p posting, in which I sincerely asked, "How do you expert Pythoneers do it?" (my para- phrase), without disclosing either that Alex and I have been discussing this, or that the Tcl interface we both know is simply a delight to me. Here's the delight. Guido asked, approximately, "What's the point? Do you need this for more than the keeping- the-GUI-responsive-for-which-there's-already-a-notifier- around case?" The answer is, yes. It's a good question, though. I'll repeat what Alex has said, with my own em- phasis: Tcl gives a uniform command API for * files (including I/O ports, ...) * subprocesses * TCP socket connections and allows the same fcntl()-like configuration of them all as to encodings, blocking, buffering, and character translation. As a programmer, I use this stuff CONSTANTLY, and very happily. It's not just for GUIs; several of my mission-critical delivered products have Tcl-coded daemons to monitor hardware, manage customer transactions, ... It's simply wonderful to be able to evolve a protocol from a socket connection to an fopen() read to ... Tcl is GREAT at "gluing". Python can do it, but Tcl has a couple of years of refinement in regard to portability issues of managing subprocesses. I really, *really* miss this stuff when I work with a language other than Tcl. I don't often whine, "Language A isn't language B." I'm happy to let individual character come out. This is, for me, an exceptional case. It's not that Python doesn't do it the Tcl way; it's that the Tcl way is wonderful, and moreover that Python doesn't feel to me to have much of an alternative answer. I conclude that there might be some- thing for Python to learn here. A colleague has also write an even higher-level wrapper in Tcl for asynchronous sockets. I'll likely explain more about it <URL:http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~dejong/tcl/EasySocket.tar.gz> in a follow-up. Conclusion for now: Alex and I like Python so much that we want you guys to know that better piping-gluing-networking truly is possible, and even worthwhile. This is sort of like the emigrants who've reported, "Yeah, here's the the stuff about CPAN that's cool, and how we can have it, too." Through it all, we absolutely want Python to continue to be Python.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4