homepage

The documentation mentions BaseEventLoop as an attribute of the "asyncio" module, but it is not actually there (at least in v3.4.2). I have to import it specially from "asyncio.base_events". Is this an oversight in the documentation, or am I relying on undocumented internals? I find the BaseEventLoop class is somewhat helpful for implementing my own event loops.

I'm in favor of exposing BaseEventLoop in the asyncio namespace directly (asyncio.BaseEventLoop) because I'm using it in various asyncio projects, and I don't like having to use submodules. I consider asyncio.base_events as the private API.

OK, fine to expose the BaseEventLoop class.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:45 PM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:
>
>
> STINNER Victor added the comment:
>
> I'm in favor of exposing BaseEventLoop in the asyncio namespace directly
> (asyncio.BaseEventLoop) because I'm using it in various asyncio projects,
> and I don't like having to use submodules. I consider asyncio.base_events
> as the private API.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23046>
> _______________________________________
>

Here is a patch to expose BaseEventLoop. It removes Server from base_events.__all__, which means that "from asyncio.base_events import *" will no import Server anymore. Can it break real applications?

Sounds unlikely. If they write "from asyncio.base_events import Server" it
will still work. Only if they wrote "from asyncio.base_events import *"
will they be broken, and that sounds not worth worrying about. So LGTM on
the patch. (But why was Server there at all? Tests?
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:
>
>
> STINNER Victor added the comment:
>
> Here is a patch to expose BaseEventLoop. It removes Server from
> base_events.__all__, which means that "from asyncio.base_events import *"
> will no import Server anymore. Can it break real applications?
>
> ----------
> keywords: +patch
> Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file37475/base_event_loop.patch
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23046>
> _______________________________________
>

> why was Server there at all? Tests?
If you cannot answer, who can answer? :-)
https://code.google.com/p/tulip/source/detail?r=f136c04d82c0 (You
added Server to __all__.)
I don't see any use case which needs to create explicitly a Server
class. There are the create_server() method and start_server()
function for that.
By the way, the Server class *is* documented as asyncio.Server, which
is the same mistake than asyncio.BaseEventLoop:
https://docs.python.org/dev/library/asyncio-eventloop.html#asyncio.Server
I propose to update the doc for Server, replace asyncio.Server with
asyncio.base_events.Server.

Heh. Well I don't remember why I did that any more, and it doesn't seem to
matter now.
However the doc issue seems different than for BaseEventLoop -- Server is
the *concrete* class (it actually gets instantiated, not a subclass). We
could instead document the AbstractServer class, but it doesn't have the
'sockets' instance variable. Maybe we should document both --
AbstractServer as the minimal interface that create_server() returns,
Server as the actual class that the default event loops (Unix and Windows)
create. With a warning that 'sockets' attribute may not be available if the
event loop has been configured differently.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:
>
>
> STINNER Victor added the comment:
>
> > why was Server there at all? Tests?
>
> If you cannot answer, who can answer? :-)
> https://code.google.com/p/tulip/source/detail?r=f136c04d82c0 (You
> added Server to __all__.)
>
> I don't see any use case which needs to create explicitly a Server
> class. There are the create_server() method and start_server()
> function for that.
>
> By the way, the Server class *is* documented as asyncio.Server, which
> is the same mistake than asyncio.BaseEventLoop:
> https://docs.python.org/dev/library/asyncio-eventloop.html#asyncio.Server
>
> I propose to update the doc for Server, replace asyncio.Server with
> asyncio.base_events.Server.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23046>
> _______________________________________
>

What do you think of my first change, base_event_loop.patch, which exposes BaseEventLoop? I'm going to commit it if nobody reviews it.

Sure. I already said LGTM on the patch (http://bugs.python.org/issue23046#msg232783).

New changeset ddf6b78faed9 by Victor Stinner in branch '3.4':
Issue #23046: Expose the BaseEventLoop class in the asyncio namespace
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ddf6b78faed9 

See also the "Documentation: document AbstractServer, Server.sockets is specific to asyncio event loops" issue:
https://code.google.com/p/tulip/issues/detail?id=188 

Since there is already an open issue suggesting to document AbstractServer (and Server), I close this issue.
The original bug was fixed: BaseEventLoop is now part of the asyncio namespace.