On 2007-11-20, Jarek Zgoda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here is my dilemma: I don't want to copy the files into a >> local directory for mutagen's sake, only to have to remove >> them afterward. Instead, I'd like to load the files into >> memory and still be able to hand the built-in "file" function >> a filename to access the file in memory. >> >> Any ideas on how to do this?
By "memory" I presume you mean virtual memory? RAM with disk-blocks as backing store? On any real OS, tempfiles are just RAM with disk-blocks as backing store. Sound similar? The only difference is the API used to access the bytes. You want a file-I/O API, so you can either use the extensively tested and and highly optimized filesystem code in the OS to make disk-backed-RAM look like a file, or you can try to write Python code that does the same thing. Which do you think is going to work faster/better? [The kernel is generally better at knowing what needs to be in RAM than you are -- let it do its job.] IOW: just use a temp file. Life will be simple. The bytes probably won't ever hit the platters (if they do, then that means they would have the other way too). -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! It's a hole all the at way to downtown Burbank! visi.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list