[IPython-dev] [IPython-user] Development plans update

Brian Granger ellisonbg.net@gmail....
Sun Feb 3 16:54:57 CST 2008


> > sense.  Anytime you make a call to the core the call _may_ be put into
> > a queue if the core is busy.  This is a standard FIFO queue.  The
> > reason this happens is to enable a user to continue working on new
> > input lines while the old ones compute.  If you are familiar with
>
> I'm not sure this should be the default behaviour. I like my stuff
> synchronous, most of the time. I think there should be the synchronous
> mode (where there are no problems with tab completion), and async mode
> (where the delays with tab completion can occur on problematic
> non-GIL-releasing code).

At some level I agree.  While all the operations _may_ be
asynchronous, it will be up to each frontend whether or not it exposes
that to the user.  If a frontend desires, it can make everything
synchronous again. In a terminal based frontend, this would surely be
the default.  In GUI frontends, you could imagine that the user could
even choose which behavior is exhibited.  But the APIs do need to be
designed with the possibility of things being asynchronous.

> > Mathematica, you can edit and submit new input cells while old ones
> > work.  But, when the queue is active, everything goes through the
> > queue - tab completion, prompt stuff. etc.  This is done to make sure
> > the entire thing is deterministic.
>
> Tab completion does not need to be deterministic IMO. It's a very
> "interactive" thing, and you can press tab a couple of times while you
> wait for the completion to be "ready". Or the frontend can retry the
> completion when it knows the queue is empty. But I still think the
> completions should be served immediately in a thread.

Yes, at some level, it will be up to the frontends to decide how to
handle these cases.  Retrying when the queue is empty or printing some
sort of message to the user "tab completion is currently not
available, please try again in a second" are reasonable options.  But,
the I do disagree about the deterministic aspect of things.  Once you
sacrifice that in a complex, asynchronous system, things become a
nightmare.  Also, threads don't solve this problem.

> > There is also another complication with prompts.  The architecture
> > already supports multiple users connecting to the same ipython
> > engine/core process.  All of the users frontends will have access to
> > the current prompt number, but, you can imagine that the frontend has
> > to in this case make decisions about what the prompts look like - the
> > core simply can't as is knows nothing about how many user are
> > connected.
>
> The frontend can just send the Itpl string to the core which expands
> it. Of course a "generate_prompt" like hook would happen in the core,
> but if that is what the user wants that's what he will get.

That is a great idea.  There just needs to be some fallback behavior
if the core can't generate a prompt at that second, but the frontend
doesn't want to wait.

> > But, there is another more important reason that tab completion can't
> > always happen.  I can give you an example - remember that every
> > command that is sent to the core _may_ be put into a queue and
> > executed later.
> >
> > In [1]: run_some_long_calculation()             # the core starts
> > working on this and it will take 5 minutes
> >
> > In [2]: a = Thing()                      # The user gets this prompt
> > immediately and enters this command.
> >                                                # because the first
> > command is still executing, this command is put on the
> >                                                # queue.  It will be
> > executed when the first one is done - in 5 minutes.
> >
> > In [3]: a.     <TAB>                   # Again, the user gets this
> > prompt immediately.  They want to tab complete
> >                                                # on a, but it is truly
> > impossible as the command to create a has not been
> >                                                # run yet.
> >
> > As you can see, the other really fundamental change in ipython1 is
> > that everything _may_ be completely asynchronous.  This requires a
> > huge paradigm shift in terms of thinking.

(see the solution above - retry until the queue is empty).

Very reasonable.

> > > I think the display hooks should still be in core, but return strings
> > > instead of direct printing.
> >
> > Yes, this is more of what it looks like.  Currently when you call the
> > method to run code in the core, it gives you back a python dict of
> > various things (stdout, stderr, etc.).  The display hooks could
> > possible manipulate those dictionaries.  But, it is important to
> > remember that multple users (with different display desires) could be
> > connected to the same core instance.  Thus, I think that much of the
> > display logic will need to be the frontends.
>
> We can't pass "live" complicated objects to the frontend (pickling
> wont work), so I think the issue is twofold:

Very true.  This is especially relevant for the traceback formatting
when you actually want to inspect the stack , etc. in real time.

> - The display hooks on server output those dicts
> (generics.result_display can return those).
> - Frontend does whatever it wants with that dict.

I think we will have to have something like this.

Thanks for the comments, it helps to see how these things might look.
Also, I hope this clarifies what I meant when I said that the APIs
will be different, but the feature will be the same (or better!).

Brian

> --
>
> Ville M. Vainio - vivainio.googlepages.com
> blog=360.yahoo.com/villevainio - g[mail | talk]='vivainio'
>


More information about the IPython-dev mailing list