Whether or not you like this feature or think it's a good idea, the brunt of this will be born by library writers. Yeah you can use a dedicated thread to listen

Whether or not you like this feature or think it's a good idea, the brunt of this will be born by library writers. Yeah you can use a dedicated thread to listen to these push messages, but really this is tacitly blessing the asyncio's and whatever else. As you can probably tell, I'm not at all a fan of the way Redis is moving. It hit a sweet spot as a "better memcached" but apparently aspires to be a real database, so now this nice simple tool is all crazy. The new protocol just kinda sucks for synchronous use. I'd go with a hand-written in-memory caching scheme before I ever considered a Redis sandwich with this feature. Seems like a complexity nightmare and very difficult to reason about. Yeah maybe I'm being crusty, but I'm just thinking about maintaining and debugging something like this and having cold sweats. The linked redisconf talk clearly bears this out. Sounds like they had a hell of a time. But then that also provides some measure of job security?