Wording: should “extra coroutines” actually be “extra tasks”?

[Hawk777]

Wording: should “extra coroutines” actually be “extra tasks”?

[andrewgodwin]

No, they can be coroutines, as something in the framework or application could explicitly await on them periodically to drive them forward. They are relatively likely to be tasks, but they do not strictly have to be, as far as I am aware.

[Hawk777]

If they’re not a task, something has to await them for them to run. As far as I can tell, the only tasks that the ASGI server promises to create are one for the lifespan protocol and one for each request. If any of those things is awaiting another coroutine, then that coroutine is living within the lifetime of that other task, and so cannot be killed by the ASGI server itself (because the ASGI server doesn’t even know it exists, it only runs when the task in question drives it).

What else is there that could await them?

[andrewgodwin]

You can, for example, use event_loop.call_later in order to have something run at some future time without a Task.

[Hawk777]

Ah, I guess you could call_later(the_coroutine.send) or something like that (since call_later itself doesn’t take a coroutine but just a normal function). I guess that makes sense, though I still find the wording a little bit confusing.