On 2023-01-27 2:14 PM, Frank Millman wrote:
I have changed it to async, which I call with 'asyncio.run'. It now
looks like this -
server = await asyncio.start_server(handle_client, host, port)
await setup_companies()
session_check = asyncio.create_task(
check_sessions(
On 2023-01-26 7:16 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Frank Millman wrote at 2023-1-26 12:12 +0200:
I have written a simple HTTP server using asyncio. It works, but I don't
always understand how it works, so I was pleased that Python 3.11
introduced some new high-level concepts that hide the gory details.
Frank Millman wrote at 2023-1-26 12:12 +0200:
>I have written a simple HTTP server using asyncio. It works, but I don't
>always understand how it works, so I was pleased that Python 3.11
>introduced some new high-level concepts that hide the gory details. I
>want to refactor my code to use these co
On 2023-01-26, Frank Millman wrote:
> I have written a simple HTTP server using asyncio. It works, but I don't
> always understand how it works,
I thought that was the rule with asyncio.
;)
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 1/5/2023 7:52 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
Thomas Passin writes:
On 1/5/2023 4:24 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
You often can replace threads in tkinter by coroutines using
asyncio when you write a replacement for the mainloop of
tkinter that uses asyncio. Now, try to read only the official
documentation
>
> > Given that both asyncio & tkinter are modules in the standard lib and
> both
> > have event loops, I would have expected to find some "best practice"
> > solution to mixing the two.
>
> Agreed. For GTK, you can use a dedicated loop policy like this:
>
> import asyncio_glib
> asyncio.set_event
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 10:52, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>
> Given that both asyncio & tkinter are modules in the standard lib and both
> have event loops, I would have expected to find some "best practice"
> solution to mixing the two. I've not used asyncio, but might find it useful
> with the pynput
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:27 AM Frank Millman wrote:
> It works, and it does look neater. But I want to start some background
> tasks before starting the server, and cancel them on Ctrl+C.
>
> Using the 'old' method, I can wrap 'loop.run_forever()' in a
> try/except/finally, check for KeyboardInt
> On 17 Sep 2020, at 15:51, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:39:51 -0400, Alberto Sentieri <2...@tripolho.com>
> declaimed the following:
>
>
>> devices tested simultaneously, I soon run out of file descriptor. Well,
>> I increased the number of file descriptor in the appl
On 17/09/2020 16:51, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:39:51 -0400, Alberto Sentieri <2...@tripolho.com>
> declaimed the following:
>
>> devices tested simultaneously, I soon run out of file descriptor. Well,
>> I increased the number of file descriptor in the application and then
Hello Alberto,
I scrambled your original message a bit here.
> Apparently asyncio Queues use a Linux pipe and each queue require 2 file
> descriptors. Am I correct?
As far as I know (And I know a bit about asyncio in CPython 3.5+)
asyncio.queues.Queue doesn't use any file descriptor. It is imple
On 2020-02-28 1:37 AM, rmli...@riseup.net wrote:
> What resources are you trying to conserve?
>
> If you want to try conserving time, you shouldn't have to worry about
> starting too many background tasks. That's because asyncio code was
> designed to be extremely time efficient at handling larg
What resources are you trying to conserve?
If you want to try conserving time, you shouldn't have to worry about
starting too many background tasks. That's because asyncio code was
designed to be extremely time efficient at handling large numbers of
concurrent async tasks.
For your application
On 2020-02-21 11:13 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
On 21/02/20 7:59 pm, Frank Millman wrote:
My first attempt was to create a background task for each session
which runs for the life-time of the session, and 'awaits' its queue.
It works, but I was concerned about having a lot a background tasks
active
On 21/02/20 7:59 pm, Frank Millman wrote:
My first attempt was to create a background task for each session which
runs for the life-time of the session, and 'awaits' its queue. It works,
but I was concerned about having a lot a background tasks active at the
same time.
The whole point of asyn
References:
1.
https://bitbucket.org/tkadm30/libschevo/src/4.0-devel/lib/schevo/xdserver/server.py
2. https://bitbucket.org/tkadm30/libschevo/src/4.0-devel/tools/schevo-daemonize
Sorry i might have talked too fast... lol :)
i am still not sure yet how python 3 internally use asyncio with linu
> -Original Message-
> From: Python-list bounces+jcasale=activenetwerx@python.org> On Behalf Of Simon
> Connah
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:03 AM
> To: Python
> Subject: asyncio Question
>
> Hi,
>
> Hopefully this isn't a stupid question. For the record I am using Python
> 3.7
Sorry for the latency.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:39:24PM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > What I meant was, the error message is specific to futures in the
> > 'PENDING' state. Which should be set to 'RUNNING' before any actions
> > occur. So it appears the tasks weren't started at all.
>
> Ah. I don
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:39 PM Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> n Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:43 PM wrote:
> > What I meant was, the error message is specific to futures in the
> > 'PENDING' state. Which should be set to 'RUNNING' before any actions
> > occur. So it appears the tasks weren't started at all.
>
> Ah
n Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:43 PM wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:15:04PM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > > For context:
> > > https://github.com/ldo/dbussy/issues/13
> > > https://gist.github.com/tu500/3232fe03bd1d85b1529c558f920b8e43
> > >
> > > It really feels like asyncio is loosing strong refer
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:15:04PM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > For context:
> > https://github.com/ldo/dbussy/issues/13
> > https://gist.github.com/tu500/3232fe03bd1d85b1529c558f920b8e43
> >
> > It really feels like asyncio is loosing strong references to scheduled
> > tasks, as excplicitly keeping
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 6:20 PM wrote:
> Again sorry for the confusion, but I don't think this is an issue with
> restarting loops, as this isn't happening in my application.
Sure, I wasn't talking about restarting loops so much as strategies
for making sure that everything has completed in the fi
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 01:57:56PM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Which is what I want in this case. Scheduling a new (long-running) task
> > as a side effect, but returning early oneself. The new task can't be
> > awaited right there, because the creating one should return already.
>
> If you want t
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 12:45:03AM +0100, i...@koeln.ccc.de wrote:
> Also, I may be overlooking things, but I haven't found a way to add a
> task before calling run_forever(), as asyncio will then say the loop
> isn't running yet. So I'm not sure how you would jumpstart in that case.
Ok, I was con
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 01:57:56PM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Which is what I want in this case. Scheduling a new (long-running) task
> > as a side effect, but returning early oneself. The new task can't be
> > awaited right there, because the creating one should return already.
>
> If you want t
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:41 AM wrote:
> > > But anyway, I highly recommend you to use the "await other_coroutine()"
> > > syntax I talked about earlier. It may even fix the issue (90% chance).
> >
> > This should indeed fix the issue, but this is definitely not what one is
> > looking for if one r
On 05/11/2018 16:38, i...@koeln.ccc.de wrote:
> I just saw, actually
> using the same loop gets rid of the behavior in this case and now I'm
> not sure about my assertions any more.
It's fixing the issue because you're running loop with the
run_forever(). As Ian and myself pointed out, using both
This weird mixing was actually a side effect of me quickly coming up
with a small example, sorry for the confusion. I just saw, actually
using the same loop gets rid of the behavior in this case and now I'm
not sure about my assertions any more. Yet it still looks like asyncio
doen'st keep strong r
On 05/11/2018 07:55, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I assume it's kind of a run_forever() with some code before it
>> to schedule the coroutine.
>
> My understanding of asyncio.run() from
> https://github.com/python/asyncio/pull/465 is that asyncio.run() is
> more or less the equivalent of loop.run_until_com
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 3:58 PM Léo El Amri via Python-list
wrote:
>
> On 04/11/2018 20:25, i...@koeln.ccc.de wrote:
> > I'm having trouble with asyncio. Apparently tasks (asyncio.create_task)
> > are not kept referenced by asyncio itself, causing the task to be
> > cancelled when the creating func
On 04/11/2018 20:25, i...@koeln.ccc.de wrote:
> I'm having trouble with asyncio. Apparently tasks (asyncio.create_task)
> are not kept referenced by asyncio itself, causing the task to be
> cancelled when the creating function finishes (and noone is awaiting the
> corresponding futue). Am I doing s
On Oct 3, 2018, Ian Kelly wrote
(in
article):
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:47 AM Russell Owen wrote:
> > Using asyncio I am looking for a simple way to await multiple events where
> > notification comes over the same socket (or other serial stream) in
> > arbitrary
> > order. For example, suppose
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:47 AM Russell Owen wrote:
> Using asyncio I am looking for a simple way to await multiple events where
> notification comes over the same socket (or other serial stream) in arbitrary
> order. For example, suppose I am communicating with a remote device that can
> run diffe
Hello Russell,
On 03/10/2018 15:44, Russell Owen wrote:
> Using asyncio I am looking for a simple way to await multiple events where
> notification comes over the same socket (or other serial stream) in arbitrary
> order. For example, suppose I am communicating with a remote device that can
> r
I found out what was the problem.
The behavior of my "reader" (The callback passed to
AbstractEventLoop.add_reader()) is to set an event. This event is
awaited for in a coroutine which actually reads what is written on a
pipe. The execution flow is the following:
* NEW LOOP TURN
* The selector aw
Thanks for the answer, but the problem is that this is happening in the
built-in Event of the asyncio package; which is actually a coroutine. I
don't expect the built-in to have this kind of behavior. I guess I'll
have to dig on the source code of the asyncio default loop to actually
understand how
Léo El Amri via Python-list writes:
> ...
> WARNING:asyncio:Executing took 1.000 seconds
> ...
> But there is still this warning...
At your place, I would look at the code responsible for the warning.
I assume that it is produced because the waiting time is rather
high -- but this is just a gue
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:08 AM, ast wrote:
> Hello,
>
> According to: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492/#await-expression
> an awaitable object is:
>
> - A native coroutine object returned from a native coroutine function
> - A generator-based coroutine object returned from a function decor
"ast" a écrit dans le message de
news:5a2a568c$0$3699$426a7...@news.free.fr...
I made some experiment.
It seems that the iterator shall provide None values, an other value
raises an exception: "RuntimeError: Task got bad yield: 1"
and in instruction "res = await obj", res got the StopIterati
On 11/28/2017 11:02 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:30 AM, ast wrote:
Hello
Python's doc says about loop.call_soon(callback, *arg):
Arrange for a callback to be called as soon as possible. The callback is
called after call_soon() returns, when control returns to the event loop.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:30 AM, ast wrote:
> Hello
>
> Python's doc says about loop.call_soon(callback, *arg):
>
> Arrange for a callback to be called as soon as possible. The callback is
> called after call_soon() returns, when control returns to the event loop.
>
> But it doesn't seem to be tru
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 2:42:41 AM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> I tried the following very simple script under both versions 3.5.3 and 3.6.1
> of Python:
>
> import sys
> import asyncio
>
> loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
>
> async def idle() :
> while True :
Le mercredi 1 mars 2017 09:25:48 UTC-5, Frank Millman a écrit :
> "Frank Millman" wrote in message news:o93vs2$smi$1...@blaine.gmane.org...
SNIP
>
> If you run this as is, it works.
>
> I added '1/0' at various points, to force an exception.
>
> If I put it in main() or in aenum(), I do not
"INADA Naoki" wrote in message
news:caefz+tz8hvwmh5cf17mv3accdqthj1axddga8umnznuuwes...@mail.gmail.com...
> For completeness, if I place '1/0' in aenum(), I get exactly the same
> traceback as the first one above.
>
I can't reproduce it too.
Did you 3.6.0 this time? Or did you used 3.6b4 aga
FYI, you can easily find this changelog of Python 3.6rc1:
- bpo-28843: Fix asyncio C Task to handle exceptions __traceback__.
See also: https://bugs.python.org/issue28843
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:11 AM, INADA Naoki wrote:
>> For completeness, if I place '1/0' in aenum(), I get exactly the same
> For completeness, if I place '1/0' in aenum(), I get exactly the same
> traceback as the first one above.
>
I can't reproduce it too.
Did you 3.6.0 this time? Or did you used 3.6b4 again?
Please don't use beta when asking question or reporting bug.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/p
"Frank Millman" wrote in message news:o994og$84k$1...@blaine.gmane.org...
If I place '1/0' in main(), this is the traceback -
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "test_db1a.py", line 25, in
loop.run_until_complete(main())
File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/asyncio/base_events.py", lin
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Frank Millman wrote:
> If I place '1/0' in main(), this is the traceback -
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "test_db1a.py", line 25, in
>loop.run_until_complete(main())
> File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/asyncio/base_events.py", line 466, in
> run
Could you use 3.6.0 instead of b4?
I added 1/0 at:
...
async def main():
1/0
await aenum()
...
then:
$ pyenv/versions/3.6.0/bin/python3 -VV
Python 3.6.0 (default, Jan 16 2017, 19:41:10)
[GCC 6.2.0 20161005]
$ pyenv/versions/3.6.0/bin/python3 a.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"INADA Naoki" wrote in message
news:caefz+tyudwjesyttqzg2_romphmjrxqaga2ulgfqv5qbpii...@mail.gmail.com...
I can't reproduce it on Linux.
Maybe, it's windows specific bug?
import asyncio
from itertools import count
async def aenumerate(aiterable):
counter = count()
async for x in aite
I can't reproduce it on Linux.
Maybe, it's windows specific bug?
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Frank Millman wrote:
> "Frank Millman" wrote in message news:o93vs2$smi$1...@blaine.gmane.org...
>>
>>
>> I use asyncio in my project, so most of my functions start with 'async'
>> and
>
> most of m
"Frank Millman" wrote in message news:o93vs2$smi$1...@blaine.gmane.org...
I use asyncio in my project, so most of my functions start with 'async'
and
most of my calls are preceded by 'await'.
If an exception is raised, I usually get the full traceback, but sometimes
I
just get something l
"Frank Millman" writes:
> I use asyncio in my project, so most of my functions start with
> 'async' and most of my calls are preceded by 'await'.
>
> If an exception is raised, I usually get the full traceback, but
> sometimes I just get something like the following -
>
> Traceback (most recent ca
John Ladasky wrote in message
news:72209011-db09-4ba2-9c5b-f576a30e2...@googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know what I must change to get the full traceback?
Three years ago, I had a similar issue with incomplete tracebacks while
using multiprocessing.Pool. The discussion is here:
https://g
> Does anyone know what I must change to get the full traceback?
Three years ago, I had a similar issue with incomplete tracebacks while using
multiprocessing.Pool. The discussion is here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.python/qKTNNt8uKKU/biNyslh19ncJ;context-place=msg/comp.la
"Ian Kelly" wrote in message
news:CALwzid=vdczAH18mHKaL7ryvDUB=7_y-JVUrTkRZ=gkz66p...@mail.gmail.com...
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Frank Millman wrote:
> The client uses AJAX to send messages to the server. It sends the
> message
> and continues processing, while a background task waits
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Frank Millman wrote:
> The client uses AJAX to send messages to the server. It sends the message
> and continues processing, while a background task waits for the response and
> handles it appropriately. As a result, the client can send a second message
> before re
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Frank Millman wrote:
> Then Twisted made a strong case for an asynchronous approach. One of their
> claims (which I have no reason to doubt) was that, because each user
> 'session' spends most of its time waiting for something - keyboard input,
> reply from database
"Frank Millman" :
> Then Twisted made a strong case for an asynchronous approach. One of
> their claims (which I have no reason to doubt) was that, because each
> user 'session' spends most of its time waiting for something -
> keyboard input, reply from database, etc - their approach allows
> hund
"Steve D'Aprano" wrote in message
news:58417e2d$0$1612$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com...
My first impressions on this is that we have a couple of good models for
preemptive parallelism, threads and processes, both of which can do
everything that concurrency can do, and more, and both of whi
Steve D'Aprano :
> py> await x
> File "", line 1
> await x
> ^
> SyntaxError: invalid syntax
"await" is only allowed inside a coroutine.
> So why do we need asyncio? What is it actually good for?
Asyncio is a form of cooperative multitasking. It presents a framework
of "fake thr
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 06:53 pm, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> well that works - but I think it it is possible to explain it, without
> actually understanding what it does behind the scences:
>
> x = foo()
> # schedule foo for execution, i.e. put it on a TODO list
>
> await x
> # run the TODO list u
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> well that works - but I think it it is possible to explain it, without
> actually understanding what it does behind the scences:
>
> x = foo()
> # schedule foo for execution, i.e. put it on a TODO list
This implies that if you never a
Am 30.11.16 um 22:07 schrieb Gregory Ewing:
Chris Angelico wrote:
That's because you're not actually running anything concurrently.
Yes, I know what happens and why. My point is that for
someone who *doesn't* know, simplistic attempts to
explain what "await" means can be very misleading.
The
Gregory Ewing :
> My point is that for someone who *doesn't* know, simplistic attempts
> to explain what "await" means can be very misleading.
>
> There doesn't seem to be any accurate way of summarising it in a few
> words. The best we can do seems to be to just say "it's a magic word
> that you h
Terry Reedy :
> On 11/30/2016 7:53 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I also think that everyone should spend some time writing
>> multithreaded code before switching to asyncio. It'll give you a
>> better appreciation for what's going on.
>
> I so disagree with this. I have written almost no thread c
Chris Angelico wrote:
That's because you're not actually running anything concurrently.
Yes, I know what happens and why. My point is that for
someone who *doesn't* know, simplistic attempts to
explain what "await" means can be very misleading.
There doesn't seem to be any accurate way of sum
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 11/30/2016 7:53 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> I also think that everyone should spend some time writing
>>> multithreaded code before switching to asyncio. It'll give you a
>>> be
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 11/30/2016 7:53 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I also think that everyone should spend some time writing
>> multithreaded code before switching to asyncio. It'll give you a
>> better appreciation for what's going on.
>
>
> I so disagree with
On 11/30/2016 7:53 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I also think that everyone should spend some time writing
multithreaded code before switching to asyncio. It'll give you a
better appreciation for what's going on.
I so disagree with this. I have written almost no thread code but have
successfully
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> From the point of view of
>> the rest of Python, no. It's a sign saying "Okay, Python, you can
>> alt-tab away from me now".
>
>
> The problem with that statement is it implies that if
> you omit the "await", then
Chris Angelico wrote:
From the point of view of
the rest of Python, no. It's a sign saying "Okay, Python, you can
alt-tab away from me now".
The problem with that statement is it implies that if
you omit the "await", then the thing you're calling
will run uninterruptibly. Whereas what actually
On Tuesday 29 November 2016 14:21, Chris Angelico wrote:
"await" means "don't continue this function until that's done". It
blocks the function until a non-blocking operation is done.
That explanation gives the impression that it's some
kind of "join" operation on parallel tasks, i.e. if
you d
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 05:41 am, Ian Kelly wrote:
> You mean how do you create something that can be awaited that doesn't
> await something else in turn? With a Future.
>
> import asyncio
>
> class Awaitable(asyncio.Future):
> def wake_up_later(self):
> asyncio.get_event_loop().call_later(3,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>
>> I haven't gotten my head around Python asyncio and have been wanting
>> to read this:
>>
>>http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2016/10/30/i-dont-understand-asyncio/
>
> It's talking a lot ab
Gregory Ewing :
> All the terminology around async/await is inherently confusing and
> counterintuitive, IMO. I'm disappointed that we've ended up here.
I think the conceptual mess can be clarified over time. Coroutines are
essentially threads. Why Python needs two threading implementations is
que
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 November 2016 14:21, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Steve D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>> This is confusing: why is this awaiting something inside an async function?
>>> Doesn't that mean that the await as
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> I haven't gotten my head around Python asyncio and have been wanting
> to read this:
>
>http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2016/10/30/i-dont-understand-asyncio/
It's talking a lot about how we got here, which isn't all necessary if
you just want to
On Tuesday 29 November 2016 14:21, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Steve D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> This is confusing: why is this awaiting something inside an async function?
>> Doesn't that mean that the await asyncio.gather(...) call is turned
>> blocking?
>
> "await" means
Chris Angelico writes:
> Asynchronous I/O is something to get your head around I'd much
> rather work with generator-based async functions...
I haven't gotten my head around Python asyncio and have been wanting
to read this:
http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2016/10/30/i-dont-understand-asyncio/
To be fair, in other languages, such as C# or C++ with similar mechanisms,
if you don't ask for the result from an async or future task, there's no
guarantee the async task will be executed at all unless (or until) you ask
for the result. C++'s futures even give an explicit flag indicating you
want
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> "await" means "don't continue this function until that's done". It
>> blocks the function until a non-blocking operation is done.
>
>
> However, *not* using 'await' doesn't mean the operation
> will be done without
Chris Angelico wrote:
"await" means "don't continue this function until that's done". It
blocks the function until a non-blocking operation is done.
However, *not* using 'await' doesn't mean the operation
will be done without blocking. Rather, it won't be done
at all (and is usually an error, b
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> What am I doing wrong?
Give yourself a bit more to debug with, since you're going to want to
do something with the result your expensive calculation anyway:
import asyncio
class Counter:
def __init__(self, i):
self.count = 10
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> This is confusing: why is this awaiting something inside an async function?
> Doesn't that mean that the await asyncio.gather(...) call is turned
> blocking?
"await" means "don't continue this function until that's done". It
blocks the func
Take a look at Doug Hellmann's example using multiprocessing at
https://pymotw.com/2/multiprocessing/basics.html You should be able to
substitute the count down example directly into the first example.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:03 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Steve D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> When I try running that, I get no output. No error, no exception, the
>> run_until_complete simply returns instantly.
>
> When I do, I get this warning:
>
> asynctest.py:17: Runtim
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 02:53 am, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> In order for the coroutines to actually do anything, you need to
>> schedule them in some way with the event loop. That could take the
>> form of awaiting them from some other coroutine, o
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 02:53 am, Ian Kelly wrote:
> In order for the coroutines to actually do anything, you need to
> schedule them in some way with the event loop. That could take the
> form of awaiting them from some other coroutine, or passing them
> directly to loop.run_until_complete or event_l
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> Let's pretend that the computation can be performed asynchronously, so that
> I can have all five Counter objects counting down in parallel. I have this:
>
>
> import asyncio
>
> class Counter:
> def __init__(self):
> self.count
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> When I try running that, I get no output. No error, no exception, the
> run_until_complete simply returns instantly.
When I do, I get this warning:
asynctest.py:17: RuntimeWarning: coroutine 'Counter.count_down' was
never awaited
obj.co
On 4/24/2016 6:07 PM, David wrote:
Is this a bug in the asyncio libraries?
Is this a fixed bug, already? I am using Python 3.4.2 as distributed in Ubuntu
Lucid, with built-in asyncio.
The people who patch asyncio do not read this list. Either install a
current release or try the tulip rele
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Martin A. Brown wrote:
> Another (non-Python) DNS name lookup library that does practically
> the same thing (along with the shortcomingsn you mentioned, Chris:
> no NSS nor /etc/hosts) is the adns library. Well, it is DNS, after
> all.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/so
Hello there,
I realize that this discussion of supporting asynchronous name
lookup requests in DNS is merely a detour in this thread on asyncio,
but I couldn't resist mentioning an existing tool.
>> getaddrinfo is a notorious pain but I think it's just a library
>> issue; an async version sho
> getaddrinfo is a notorious pain but I think it's just a library issue; an
async version should be possible in principle. How does Twisted handle
it? Does it have a version?
I think we're a little outside the scope of OP's question at this point,
but for the sake of answering this:
There are a
Paul Rubin :
> I've just felt depressed whenever I've looked at any Python async
> stuff. I've written many Python programs with threads and not gotten
> into the trouble that people keep warning about.
Programming-model-wise, asyncio is virtually identical with threads. In
each, I dislike the im
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> In a (non-Python) program of mine, I got annoyed by synchronous name
>> lookups, so I hacked around it: instead of using the regular library
>> functions, I just do a DNS lookup directly (which can then be
>> event-base
Chris Angelico :
> In a (non-Python) program of mine, I got annoyed by synchronous name
> lookups, so I hacked around it: instead of using the regular library
> functions, I just do a DNS lookup directly (which can then be
> event-based - send a UDP packet, get notified when a UDP packet
> arrives
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> getaddrinfo is a notorious pain but I think it's just a library issue;
> an async version should be possible in principle. How does Twisted
> handle it? Does it have a version?
In a (non-Python) program of mine, I got annoyed by synchronous n
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> It would appear that disk I/O is considered nonblocking at a very deep
> level:
> * O_NONBLOCK doesn't have an effect
> * a process waiting for the disk to respond cannot receive a signal
> * a process waiting for the disk to respond stays in the "ready" state
You can
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
