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 <1337771156.42.0.947338813496.issue1191964@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> 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.
History
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: <1337771156.42.0.947338813496.issue1191964@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-05-23 11:05:55rosslagerwalllinkissue1191964 messages
2012-05-23 11:05:55rosslagerwallcreate