3 ms·
The tone used is indeed not the proper one, but while I'm a big asyncio advocate, I think it would be beneficial if you would split your project in 2, separatin
by sametmax 10y ago
The tone used is indeed not the proper one, but while I'm a big asyncio advocate, I think it would be beneficial if you would split your project in 2, separating the IO from the rest (like hyper does https://github.com/Lukasa/hyper https://github.com/Lukasa/hyper).
The rational being:
- Python is not just async. It currently majoritarly sync. A lot of the community would benefit from your awesome project;
- You'd have contrib from the async and sync community;
- async may sometime not be worth it for db (http://techspot.zzzeek.org/2015/02/15/asynchronous-python-and-databases/); http://techspot.zzzeek.org/2015/02/15/asynchronous-python-an...
- some people will prefer to use threads or gevent;
- you will see compat plugin created for current ORM;
That aside, I will use your project as is, since I'm deep in asyncio these days. Thank you.
- 1st1 10y ago> I think it would be beneficial if you would split your project in 2, separating the IO from the rest (like hyper does https://github.com/Lukasa/hyper https://github.com/Lukasa/hyper). I'd like to do that, but we don't have resources. If we had a couple capable devs volunteering on the GH to do this, I'd be glad to review patches and guide the development.
- sametmax 10y agoI get that. I have the same problem. And it's not just the ressources, what you need are skilled enough ressources, and that's even harder.