This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author rosslagerwall
Recipients Andrew.Boettcher, BreamoreBoy, ajaksu2, astrand, cvrebert, ericpruitt, giampaolo.rodola, josiahcarlson, ooooooooo, parameter, r.david.murray, rosslagerwall, sbt, techtonik
Date 2012-05-23.11:05:55
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> 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 11:05:56rosslagerwallsetrecipients: + rosslagerwall, josiahcarlson, astrand, parameter, techtonik, giampaolo.rodola, ajaksu2, ooooooooo, r.david.murray, cvrebert, ericpruitt, BreamoreBoy, Andrew.Boettcher, sbt
2012-05-23 11:05:56rosslagerwallsetmessageid: <>
2012-05-23 11:05:55rosslagerwalllinkissue1191964 messages
2012-05-23 11:05:55rosslagerwallcreate