On Sun, Feb 22, 2009, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 20:12, Aahz <a...@pythoncraft.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 15:46, Aahz <a...@pythoncraft.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009, Brett Cannon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am seeing two approaches emerging. One is where pickle contains all >>>>> Python code and then uses something like use_extension to make sure >>>>> the original Python objects are still reachable at some point. This >>>>> has the drawback that you have to use some function to make the >>>>> extensions happen and there is some extra object storage. >>>>> >>>>> The other approach is having pickle contain code known not to >>>>> be overridden by anyone, import _pypickle for stuff that may be >>>>> overridden, and then import _pickle for whatever is available. This >>>>> approach has the perk of using a standard practice for how to pull in >>>>> different implementation. But the drawback, thanks to how globals are >>>>> bound, is that any code pulled in from _pickle/_pypickle will not be >>>>> able to call into other optimized code; it's a take or leave it once >>>>> the call chain enters one of those modules as they will always call >>>>> the implementations in the module they originate from. >>>> >>>> To what extent do we care about being able to select Python-only on a >>>> per-module basis, particularly in the face of threaded imports? That >> is, >>>> we could have a sys.python_only attribute that gets checked on import. >>>> That's simple and direct, and even allows per-module switching if the >>>> application really cares and import doesn't need to worry about threads. >>>> >>>> Alternatively, sys.python_only could be a set, but that gets ugly about >>>> setting from the application. (The module checks to see whether it's >>>> listed in sys.python_only.) >>>> >>>> Maybe we should move this discussion to python-ideas for now to kick >>>> around really oddball suggestions? >>> >>> This is all about testing. If a change is made to some extension code it >>> should be mirrored in the Python code and vice-versa. >> >> Okay, I don't see how that is a response to my suggestion -- I can >> imagine that someone might want to test a combination of pure-Python and >> binary libraries. > > I don't want to move it because this isn't some idea for a new feature that > may or may not be useful; this isn't an "idea", it's needed.
That's fine, but what about my idea of using sys.python_only? -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization. _______________________________________________ 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
