Duncan Booth wrote: > Laszlo Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The 'parallel python' site seems very sparse on the details of how it is > implemented but it looks like all it is doing is spawning some subprocesses > and using some simple ipc to pass details of the calls and results. I can't > tell from reading it what it is supposed to add over any of the other > systems which do the same. > > Combined with the closed source 'no redistribution' license I can't really > see anyone using it.
Thats true. IPC through sockets or (somewhat faster) shared memory - cPickle at least - is usually the maximum of such approaches. See http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/f822ec289f30b26a For tasks really requiring threading one can consider IronPython. Most advanced technique I've see for CPython ist posh : http://poshmodule.sourceforge.net/ I'd say Py3K should just do the locking job for dicts / collections, obmalloc and refcount (or drop the refcount mechanism) and do the other minor things in order to enable free threading. Or at least enable careful sharing of Py-Objects between multiple separated Interpreter instances of one process. .NET and Java have shown that the speed costs for this technique are no so extreme. I guess less than 10%. And Python is a VHLL with less focus on speed anyway. Also see discussions in http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/f822ec289f30b26a . Robert -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list