RetroSearch Browse

Fri May 28 01:37:19 CEST 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-May/100430.html

On 28 May 2010, at 09:18, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Brian Quinlan wrote:
>
>> I think that the "Executor" suffix is a good indicator of the   
>> interface being provided.
>
> It's not usually considered necessary for the name of a
> type to indicate its interface. We don't have 'listsequence'
> and 'dictmapping' for example.
>
> I think what bothers me most about these names is their
> longwindedness. Two parts to a name is okay, but three or
> more starts to sound pedantic. And for me, "Pool" is a
> more important piece of information than "Executor".
> The fact that it manages a pool is the main reason I'd
> use such a module rather than just spawning a thread myself
> for each task.

Actually, an executor implementation that created a new thread per  
task would still be useful - it would save you the hassle of  
developing a mechanism to wait for the thread to finish and to collect  
the results. We actually have such an implementation at Google and it  
is quite popular.

Cheers,
Brian

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-May/100430.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement