On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Cem Karan <cfkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Fabio Zadrozny <fabi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Cem, > > > > I didn't read the whole long thread, but I thought I'd point you to what > I'm using in PyVmMonitor (http://www.pyvmmonitor.com/) -- which may > already cover your use-case. > > > > Take a look at the callback.py at > https://github.com/fabioz/pyvmmonitor-core/blob/master/pyvmmonitor_core/callback.py > > > > And its related test (where you can see how to use it): > https://github.com/fabioz/pyvmmonitor-core/blob/master/_pyvmmonitor_core_tests/test_callback.py > (note that it falls back to a strong reference on simple functions -- i.e.: > usually top-level methods or methods created inside a scope -- but > otherwise uses weak references). > > That looks like a better version of what I was thinking about originally. > However, various people on the list have convinced me to stick with strong > references everywhere. I'm working out a possible API right now, once I > have some code that I can use to illustrate what I'm thinking to everyone, > I'll post it to the list. > > Thank you for showing me your code though, it is clever! > > Thanks, > Cem Karan Hi Cem, Well, I decided to elaborate a bit on the use-case I have and how I use it (on a higher level): http://pydev.blogspot.com.br/2015/02/design-for-client-side-applications-in.html So, you can see if it may be worth for you or not (I agree that sometimes you should keep strong references, but for my use-cases, weak references usually work better -- with the only exception being closures, which is handled different anyways but with the gotcha of having to manually unregister it). Best Regards, Fabio
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
