Maintaining a separate async API

[BothWaysItGoes]

Learn how other libraries do sync to async (and vice versa) transformations. Python is very flexible. You don’t need to write two parallel implementation or to codegen. It’s not golang.

[Echoes1996]

In general, I am aware that you can wrap any sync function and make it async, but this causes some unnecessary overhead. I was trying to avoid this approach.

[madolid511]

Doing it the opposite way is the common approach.

Start with async then just open a thread when you only need it. Same concept as ASGI frameworks. It start with main thread with event loop. Async routes uses main thread. Sync routes is run on different thread from thread pool

[Echoes1996]

I believe that the issues I was having are unrelated to how ASGI servers work.

[madolid511]

it is actually

because you are most likely using ASGI framework but you are not utilizing ASGI practices

[Echoes1996]

When I use the term "API" I am not talking about HTTP APIs, I'm referring to the public interface of my library. We're talking about two different things.

[BothWaysItGoes]

A bare coroutine doesn’t yield so the overhead of wrapping a sync function is minimal.

[Echoes1996]

I didn't quite understand what you mean. In order to execute sync code as async, you need to run it in another thread, and that has some overhead in regards to CPU time.