This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 29, 2024. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chappell nchappell@mono-software.com
Enhancement / Feature
Currently, we would like to use the python-vcx bindings in a server environment. The server must operate in an
async
-hronous fashion, and in some cases needs to use libvcx. While spawning a new process to completely isolate all libvcx operations would be ideal, it is unfortunately not an option for us. Since libvcx can only "manage one connection at a time" (see comment below), we require synchronization between async processes. This has led to the need to use the idiom:This seems like the type of thing that should be a part of the libraries underlying utilities, here are a few reasons why:
Comments
I'm no domain-expert, nor do I have a lot of experience with this library. The phrasing "manage one connection at a time" may be erroneous, but the intent should be clear. Also, it may be that additional logic is required for these context managers to be fully functional, we're exploring options with our current implementation.