[Stackless] Tasklet delays

[OvermindDL1]

Blasted!  Why is the stackless list headers broken...
Forwarding what *SHOULD* have gone to the list in the first place...

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Jeremy Stott <tins.jeremy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> That sounds pretty clever! How do you allow the timerkeeper to poll once in
> a while?
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:06 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Jeremy Stott <tins.jeremy at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > So far I am loving stackless python! I am totally new to it though and
>> > was
>> > wondering about having tasklets wait for a certain amount of time.
>> >
>> > The problem is:
>> > I would like to have a tasklet wait for 2 seconds before returning to
>> > the
>> > scheduling queue, but not delay any other running tasklets.
>> >
>> > What I have done:
>> > timeStart = time.time()
>> >
>> > while (time.time() < timeStart + 2):
>> >     stackless.schedule()
>> >
>> > But this way does waste resources every scheduling cycle. Is there a
>> > better
>> > way to do this?
>>
>> I have a tasklet that is designed for such time keeping.  I have a
>> tasklet send a message to the timekeeper tasklet saying to resume
>> itself at the current time + however many milliseconds.  The
>> timekeeper tasklet polls every once in a while checking for elapsed
>> times, and if a time is elapsed, it sends a message to wake that
>> tasklet up so it can do whatever, like return itself to the normal
>> queue if it wants.

It polls just by being in the normal queue, it always runs, and yes it
is basically doing the same thing as your
>> > while (time.time() < timeStart + 2):
>> >     stackless.schedule()
example, but since it is the *only* one doing it, I can have as many
tasklets as I want waiting while it handles all timekeeping.  When I
add a tasklet to the timekeeper internal queue, just sort it based on
time then a simple comparison each loop is perfect.

I think the eve demo code had such an example actually now that I think of it.


Also, for future note, it is usually not good to top post, here is a
good example as to why.  :)

> A: Yes.
> > Q: Are you sure?
> >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
>
> If you are not convinced that it is wrong by the simple example above,
> now try to mix top and bottom posting:
>
> A: Yes.
> > Q: Are you sure?
> >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
> >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>
> I don't know about you, but that's simply crazy!
>
> The correct way:
> >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
> >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> > Q: Are you sure?
> A: Yes.