Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > To be honest I can't find much to say about this proposal, > > Hum, OK, I thought it would be a useful addition :-)
It's probably useful, but I'd have to take a closer look. It's been a long time I haven't used separate threads for timers... > Note that the time function must be "real" time, since the sleep are > based on condition.wait() (otherwise if you just call an arbitrary > sleep() function you can't be woken up when a new task with an > earlier > deadline is submitted). Agreed, but at least tornado supports a custom time function, even though their event loop is based on epoll() (under Linux): http://www.tornadoweb.org/en/stable/ioloop.html#tornado.ioloop.IOLoop.time This means: 1) the custom time function is used to adjust the epoll() timeout according to pending timed calls 2) the epoll() call times out based on the system time function I suppose it works well enough when the divergence is not too large, and/or the wakeups are frequent enough that there are no glaring defects. "Practicality beats purity", I guess :) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17956> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
