I understand the problem and the use-case, but what does your library provide? Running processes remotely? Supervising remote processes? Transparently running Python functions in remote processes?
These things. This is mentioned in http://catern.com/integration.html#thread
You keep pointing me to that document that you feel is compelling, but all it does is explicitly run a Python function in a local thread... I know it's meant as a shortcut in the example but it's hard to infer what the real capabilities are, when what you're doing is not much more than what `trio` or stdlib can do.
Yes, with rsyscall, is that not clear? It's pretty explicit in http://catern.com/integration.html#thread
>but all it does is explicitly run a Python function in a local thread...
That's not all that's happening. I think you might be pattern-matching what's happening in the article to something you've already seen, when in fact it's something novel.
It is nice to have a self-contained example that you can run on your machine, but I think an example that actually shows the capabilities of the framework will serve you better. E.g. show an example of serving network requests by running services on multiple nodes, rather than a toy function with a toy database.
Showing that it's as easy as `run_in_executor()` is nice, but not if it does the exact same thing as `run_in_executor()`.
That's fair and a good point! I suppose reading this, you have no evidence that anything but local_thread exists. I'll change that, somehow, to show that indeed there exist values other than local_thread, and that passing those will run things on remote hosts.
This article originally grew out of a tutorial on writing tests using this style, for which running over multiple hosts is not necessary and maybe undesirable... but that's not good for what the article is today.