[IPython-dev] frontend plans

Brian Granger ellisonbg.net@gmail....
Thu Jun 26 18:03:35 CDT 2008


Barry,

>> I think that we could have a single base class that implements the
>> actual frontend logic and then have multiple subclasses that handle
>> the calls to the various types of backends (kernel.core or
>> kernel.engineservice).  I need to look more at how the frontend is
>> implemented, but Barry, do you think this would work.
>
> Yes, I think this would work. I thought zope.interface was pure
> python. Since we can't require zope.interface in the stripped-down
> ipython, I now think option 1 is the best approach. I'll work on that.

Great, I think that will be best, even though it has its own downsides.

>> Also, the Synchronous deferred does not present the exact same
>> interface as a true deferred or make the same promises about when
>> things will happen.
>
> What is your understanding of the differences?

For Deferreds, I think the interface is not a complete specification
of the objects behavior.  For Deferreds, there are subtle cases that
arise when you chain them together.  The behavior exhibited in complex
Deferred chaining _can_ depend on whether or a given Deferred has
fired or not when the chaining is setup.  We have in various places
that handles these odd edge cases.  Also, we sometimes access the
semi-private attributes of Deferreds.  Another thing is that if you
have multiple unfired Deferreds, the order in which they will fire is
not deterministic.  For the synchronous deferreds, I think the
ordering has to be deterministic.  But in my mind, this constitues a
different behavior and thus "interface" in the board sense of the
word.

We might be able to get the synchronous deferreds to work, but I am a
little hesitant to go down that route simply because all of these
things are _super_ subtle and nearly impossible to debug.

> Thus, I my mind, the new IEngineCore
>> implementation _couldn't_ possible really implement the interface.  In
>> fact, if I remember correctly, we have a test that can be run on any
>> IEngineCore implementer.  It actually calls all the methods of the
>> interface and checks:
>>
>> self.assert_(isinstance(return_value, t.i.Deferred)
>>
>> A fake deferred won't pass such tests.
>
> I don't think this is an appropriate test then. The interface should
> specify the behavior of the returned object, not its implementation.
> If the Synchronous Deferred behaves the same as a t.i.defer.Deferred,
> then it should pass the test. The fact that it may not behave the same
> is a bigger issue.

True, I could write a better test for this.  The current test is only
a super weak test behavior wise, but given the fact that there are no
other objects that truly act like a Deferred, the test suffices.

>>
>> So, in summary, I think more discussion is needed before commiting to
>> #2.  I am crazy busy, but I will try to have a look at IFrontEnd
>> tonight.
>
>>
>>
>>> Since the IEngine* interface is much more stable than the IFrontEnd
>>> interface, I propose going with solution #2. Although it adds an
>>> additional python file as external dependency, it seems conceptually
>>> cleaner (all frontends go through the engine interface) and allows
>>> frontends to decide between synchronous and asynchronous behavior
>>> without any code changes.
>>
>> I think it is conceptually convoluted because the only significant way
>> that IEngireCore different from the underlying core is that its
>> methods return deferreds (and Failures).  Thus to use IEngineCore, but
>> then try to get rid of the (true) Deferreds by using fake ones seems
>> like double work (why not just call the class whose methods don't
>> return deferreds in the first place).
>
> It feels weird that there are two ways to interact with ipython—engine
> and core directly. It seemed that making a common interface was
> cleaner in that it allowed users of that interface to be able to use
> engine or core without modification of the frontend. Since that's not
> really an option anymore (because of zope.interface), I'm happy to
> give up that opinion and move on.

I do sort of agree with this, but I think having two interfaces is
appropriate because they have vastly different behaviors (synchronous
vs asynchronous).

>> Actually, I think we are in agreement that tab completion (the part
>> that actually looks up things in the users namespace) needs to be done
>> in the engine/core through its complete method.  There is just no way
>> it is reasonable to mirror the user_ns in the frontend for the reasons
>> you mention.  Sorry if we have said anything confusion on this front.
>> So I guess the complete method of the frontend should just call the
>> complete method of the engine/core?
>
> Yes. I agree. frontend.complete() calls engine/core.complete().

Cool,

Cheers,

Brian

>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>> [1] Removing the Twisted dependence completely will require moving the
>>> IEngine* interfaces to a separate module from the implementations. I
>>> propose moving them to IPython.kernel.engineinterface.py.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IPython-dev mailing list
>>> IPython-dev@scipy.org
>>> http://lists.ipython.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev
>>>
>>
>


More information about the IPython-dev mailing list