Message161400
> Personally, I would factor out the code for Popen.communicate() in to a > Communicator class which wraps a Popen object and has a method
>
> communicate(input, timeout=None) -> (bytes_written, output, error)
How would this differ from the normal communicate()?
It seems like there are two different ideas for why people want an "asynchronous subprocess":
One is that they want to use communicate() but not be limited by memory issues.
I think a good API for this case is an asyncore style API or like the one from the patch in issue1260171.
Another use case is for an expect-type interface where you read and write based on a timeout or some kind of delimiter like a newline.
These should probably be addressed independently.
See also issue10482. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-05-23 11:05:56 | rosslagerwall | set | recipients:
+ rosslagerwall, josiahcarlson, astrand, parameter, techtonik, giampaolo.rodola, ajaksu2, ooooooooo, r.david.murray, cvrebert, ericpruitt, BreamoreBoy, Andrew.Boettcher, sbt |
2012-05-23 11:05:56 | rosslagerwall | set | messageid: <1337771156.42.0.947338813496.issue1191964@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-05-23 11:05:55 | rosslagerwall | link | issue1191964 messages |
2012-05-23 11:05:55 | rosslagerwall | create | |
|