Brian Quinlan <br...@sweetapp.com> added the comment:
When I first wrote and started using ThreadPoolExecutor, I had a lot of code like this: with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=500) as e: e.map(download, images) I didn't expect that `images` would be a large list but, if it was, I wanted all of the downloads to happen in parallel. I didn't want to have to explicitly take into account the list size when starting the executor (e.g. max_works=min(500, len(images))) but I also didn't want to create 500 threads up front when I only needed a few. My use case involved transient ThreadPoolExecutors so I didn't have to worry about idle threads. In principle, I'd be OK with trying to avoid unnecessary thread creation if the implementation can be simple and efficient enough. https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/6375 seems simple enough but I haven't convinced myself that it works yet ;-) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue24882> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
