On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> Jesse Noller wrote: >> > Georg kindly published the PEP I submitted last night to the PEP site: >> > >> > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0371/ >> > >> > This PEP includes some of the previous discussion on the processing >> > module's inclusion, and I hope clears up/clarifies some of the >> > goals/non goals and issues. I also included benchmark data and a link >> > to the code used for said benchmarks. >> > >> > I would like to renew the discussion now that "there is a PEP" to see >> > if there are any outstanding things people would like to get resolved. >> > I chose to continue to push it for 2.6 / 3.0 inclusion due to feedback >> > both here and elsewhere that people would rather see this in sooner in >> > some form, rather than later (i.e.: 2.7/3.1). >> >> +1 from me (under the 'multiprocessing' name, with the understanding that >> some code duplication with other parts of the standard library may still >> remain in 2.6/3.0). > > +1 from me as well. > > I think multiple-processes is over played as a concurrency solution in > Python (where you need to marshal lots of data in and out, the overheads of > multiple processes can be very expensive) - but it is a very good solution > for some problems. > > Michael Foord
Agreed - this is a "step" rather than the final solution. As I pointed out in the PEP this is a method to side-step GIL limitations rather than to address the larger "GIL issue", I am implicitly assuming that no movement will be made on that front until the bulk of Adam Olsen's safethreading work is rolled into future versions. -jesse _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com