On 31 Jan 2007 22:02:36 -0800, Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Jan 31, 8:31 pm, "Carl J. Van Arsdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> >> Well, since it will be io based, why not use threads? They are easy to >> use and it would do the job just fine. Then leverage some other >> technology on top of that. >> >> You could go as far as using wget via os.system() in a thread, if the >> app is simple enough. > >Calling os.system in a thread look really perverse to me, you would >loose CTRL-C without any benefit. >Why not to use subprocess.Popen instead? > >I am unhappy with the current situation in Python. Whereas for most >things Python is such that the simplest >things look simple, this is not the case for threads. Unfortunately we >have a threading module in the >standard library, but not a "Twisted for pedestrian" module, so people >overlook the simplest solution >in favor of the complex one. >Another thing I miss is a facility to run an iterator in the Tkinter >mainloop: since Tkinter is not thread-safe, >writing a multiple-download progress bar in Tkinter using threads is >definitely less obvious than running >an iterator in the main loop, as I discovered the hard way. Writing a >facility to run iterators in Twisted >is a three-liner, but it is not already there, nor standard :-( >
Have you seen the recently introduced twisted.internet.task.coiterate()? It sounds like it might be what you're after. Jean-Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
