RetroSearch Browse

Mon Apr 28 23:34:56 CEST 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-April/134380.html

On 4/28/2014 4:24 PM, Claudiu Popa wrote:
> This issue raised too much bikeshedding. To wrap it up, I'll modify
> the patch with the following:
>
> - processes renamed to workers
> - `workers` defaults to 1
> - When `workers` is equal to 0, then `os.cpu_count` will be used
> - When `workers` > 1, multiple processes will be used
> - When `workers` == 1, run normally (no multiple processes)

I presume you mean for this to be the default.

> - Negative values really should raise a ValueError (as
> multiprocessing.Pool and soon
>    concurrent.futures.Thread/ProcessPoolExecutor)

Yay!

> - Will raise NotImplementedError if multiprocessing can't be used
> (when `workers` equals to 0 or > 1)
>
> If anyone agrees with the above, then I'll modify the patch.

Having read the thread, though not much of the issue, these look to me 
like the best choices for a clean, comprehensible API.

 > This will
> be its last iteration, any other bikeshedding
> should be addressed by the core dev who'll apply it.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-April/134380.html below:

[Python-Dev] API and process questions (sparked by Claudiu Popa on 16104