Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Deprecate app.on_loop_available signal #1978

Closed
asvetlov opened this issue Jun 14, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Deprecate app.on_loop_available signal #1978

asvetlov opened this issue Jun 14, 2017 · 6 comments
Labels

Comments

@asvetlov
Copy link
Member

asvetlov commented Jun 14, 2017

From my understanding on app.on_startup the loop is already present.
Why do we need additional signal?
app.on_loop_available is not documented BTW
@fafhrd91 ?

@fafhrd91
Copy link
Member

I think this was for config and runtime separation. I am not sure if it is useful, we can deprecate any of those.

@kxepal
Copy link
Member

kxepal commented Jun 15, 2017

+1 to deprecate and remove on_loop_available, don't see how it could be useful.

@justanr
Copy link

justanr commented Jun 15, 2017

It looks like on_loop_available happens outside running the event loop, right? That's useful for doing blocking setup or interacting with third party packages that use the various run methods on the loop to do work. I've run into an issue where a package tries to use the loop to do something but it's already running so it just crashes.

@asvetlov
Copy link
Member Author

asvetlov commented Jun 16, 2017

It looks like on_loop_available happens outside running the event loop, right?

No, there is no such guarantee.

If you need to do something blocking etc -- please do it before run_app() call.

@justanr
Copy link

justanr commented Jun 16, 2017

Ah, in that case, yeah it should probably go the way of the dodo.

@asvetlov asvetlov mentioned this issue Jun 19, 2017
5 tasks
@asvetlov asvetlov changed the title [Q] What is the reason for app.on_loop_available signal? Deprecate app.on_loop_available signal Jun 19, 2017
asvetlov added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 19, 2017
@lock
Copy link

lock bot commented Oct 28, 2019

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been
any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for
related bugs.

If you feel like there's important points made in this discussion,
please include those exceprts into that new issue.

@lock lock bot added the outdated label Oct 28, 2019
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 28, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants