![falcon sql client for windows implementation falcon sql client for windows implementation](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/connect/media/homepage-sql-connection-drivers/gm-aka-ms-sqldev-choose-language-g21.png)
Falcon sql client for windows implementation code#
Favors an implicit style that seeks to make async code look synchronous. The asyncio ecosystem is relatively young at the time of this writing the community is still experimenting with a wide variety of approaches around interfaces, patterns and tooling. Long-term, this is probably the cleanest option, but necessitates an evolution of the WSGI interface (see also pulsar's extension to PEP-3333 as one possible approach). Borrows many ideas from Twisted, but takes advantage of Python 3 language features to provide a cleaner interface. For integrating with a WSGI framework like Falcon, there's and crochet. Favors an explicit asynchronous style, and is probably the most mature option.
![falcon sql client for windows implementation falcon sql client for windows implementation](https://appimage.github.io/database/falcon-sql-client/icons/256x256/falcon-sql-client.png)
And for especially long-running tasks (i.e., on the order of several seconds or minutes), Celery's not a bad choice.Ī brief survey of some of the more common async options for WSGI (and Falcon) apps:
![falcon sql client for windows implementation falcon sql client for windows implementation](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cuTMbGjN2GQ/hqdefault.jpg)
See also below for some of the more common options.įor libraries that do not support an async interaction model, either natively or via some kind of subclassing mechanism, tasks can be delegated to a thread pool. Client libraries have varying support for async operations, so the decision often comes down to which async approach is best supported by your particular backend client(s), combined with which WSGI server you would like to use.