[issue34430] Symmetrical chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Alfred Sawaya added the comment: Can be closed if not needed by the community. -- resolution: -> wont fix stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
New submission from Alfred Sawaya : asyncio.future.wrap_future is used to wrap a concurrent.future.Future in a asyncio.future.Future. The actual implementation as the following behaviours : 1) When the concurrent.future.Future gets a result, the asyncio.future.Future gets the same result, 2) When the asyncio.future.Future is cancelled, the concurrent.future.Future is cancelled I wonder why the futures synchronisation is not symmetrical ? I propose to add the following behaviours : 3) When the asyncio.future.Future gets a result, the concurrent.future.Future gets the same result, 4) When the concurrent.future.Future is cancelled, the asyncio.future.Future is cancelled I have also posted a request pull that implements the proposed behaviours, in case of acceptation. If there is good reasons to not implement the proposed behaviours, I would be glad to know. Thank you ! -- components: asyncio messages: 323703 nosy: asvetlov, huji, yselivanov priority: normal pull_requests: 8280 severity: normal status: open title: Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future type: enhancement versions: Python 3.6, Python 3.7, Python 3.8 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Change by Alfred Sawaya : -- pull_requests: -8280 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Change by Alfred Sawaya : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +8281 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Change by Alfred Sawaya : -- pull_requests: -8281 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Alfred Sawaya added the comment: Actually the PR does not pass some tests, I will work on this. If the new behaviours are accepted, I will implement them soon. -- ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Change by Alfred Sawaya : -- pull_requests: +8283 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Change by Alfred Sawaya : -- pull_requests: +8284 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Alfred Sawaya added the comment: The proposed solution (PR) has passed all tests. -- ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Change by Alfred Sawaya : -- versions: -Python 3.6, Python 3.7 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Change by Alfred Sawaya : -- pull_requests: -8283 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Symmetrical chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Change by Alfred Sawaya : -- title: Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future -> Symmetrical chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34430] Symmetrical chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future
Alfred Sawaya added the comment: I use it to integrate a concurrent-based software (B) with an asyncio-based software (A). (B) will undergo a massive refactoring to become asyncio-based in the future, but for now, I need to use it as-is. I don't want to modify (A) to handle concurrent.futures.Future (it is developped by another team by the way) and I prefer to begin to implement asyncio into (B). So (A) waits for a task request with an asyncio.Future, then processes it and populates the Future's result. (B) has a waiting loop into a thread that handles multiples concurrent.futures.Future. When (B) receives a request it creates a concurrent.futures.Future and push it into a queue for the waiting loop. If the request asks for a task implemented by (A), it wraps it into an asyncio.Future and call (A) with it. (A) processes the task and populates the asyncio.Future's result. That's why I needed to implement the proposed behaviours. Actually I will not need it for long, as (B) will become asyncio-based, but I wanted to integrate (A) and (B) with as less effort as possible, so I implemented my custom Future wrapper, but I think it is useful to refactor concurrent-based software to asyncio incrementally (and I will have to do it multiple times in the near future). -- ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
