Skip to main content

Python AST Manipulation for Transparent Defering of Calls?

A lot of work has been going on with the Python AST and being able to manipulate it for more runtime uses. This is a generalized suggestion for something we could do in the Twisted community to utilize this.

Given a simple function like this:



def processPage(url):
d = getPage(url)
d.addCallback(cb_processPage)
d.addErrback(eb_processPage)
def cb_processPage(page):
print page
def eb_processPage(error):
print "Could not load page. Error: ", error

We write like that, but what we really mean, and just need to express in a more difficult manner, is:


def processPage(url):
try:
print getPage(url)
except LoadError, e:
print "Could not load page. Error: ", e

What I want to know, is can we take the second example and process the AST branch to produce the first example? Lets step through and see how it would work. First of all, we need to know what is deferred. A simple way would be to check every function return and determine if it is a deferred, but there may be more efficent methods we can discover later. For any possibly deferred call, the expression it is a part of can be refactored out into its own function, as can the exception handler code. When a deferred is detected, the callbacks can be attached and if the operation is not deferred, the callbacks can be used directly. This might even bring about something slightly new: optionally deferred operations. Instead of using defer.succeed and such, returning a deferred could cause code to handle the deferred properly, which would otherwise act in a normal syncronous manner. Depending on just how the AST stuff progresses, maybe the returning of the deferred could trigger the inspection of the calling function to inject the deferred handling code, so only functions that ever get a deferred will need processing.

Comments

PJE said…
"""What I want to know, is can we take the second example and process the AST branch to produce the first example?"""

Doesn't matter. Change your second example to say "print yield getPage(url)", use Python 2.5, and run the whole thing under a trampoline function that knows how to handle deferreds. See PEP 342 for examples. Net result: all you have to do is add "yield" wherever your code can be suspended -- even in the middle of arbitrary expressions, error handlers, and the like.

Now, if you want to do it with Python versions before 2.5, see peak.events. You just have to make it say "yield getPage(url); print events.resume()" instead, because Python before 2.5 can't get a value back from a yield statement. But peak.events already has the necessary trampolines written, and they already work with Twisted's deferreds.
I'd prefer to write something like this (replacing indentation with periods for legibility's sake):

def processPage(url):
....when getPage(url) -> page:
........print page
....except LoadError, e:
........print 'Could not load page. Error: ', e

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…