On Mar 3, 7:11 am, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:45:24 -0800, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > [snip] > > > Threads, in Python, are good for parallel processing of items that > >tend to be I/O bound -- that is, stuff that blocks on lots of I/O calls > >allowing other threads to execute until they block too. Due to the GIL > >in the common Python implementation, threading is not useful for > >number-crunching (CPU bound) processing. > > > Now, there is a very vocal group that recommend Twisted style > >asynchronous call-backs for everything in the world... But I think that > >group tends to forget that Windows I/O is incompatible with the > >low-level select() call often used to do parallel I/O -- leaving it only > >useful for the network socket I/O, but not local file I/O processing. > > I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that the only way to use Windows' > asynchronous I/O APIs is with threads. Actually, it is possible (and Twisted > allows you) to use these as well without writing a threaded application. > > Perhaps you think it would be better to use them with threads, but that's > certainly not the _only_ way to use them as you implied. > > Jean-Paul
What's the API call for it? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
