On Nov 7, 12:22 am, Walter Overby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read Andy to stipulate that the pipe needs to transmit "hundreds of > megs of data and/or thousands of data structure instances." I doubt > he'd be happy with memcpy either. My instinct is that contention for > a lock could be the quicker option.
If he needs to communicate that amount of data very often, he has a serious design problem. A pipe can transmit hundreds of megs in a split second by the way. > And don't forget, he says he's got an "opaque OS object." He asked > the group to explain how to send that via IPC to another process. I > surely don't know how. This is a typical situation where one could use a proxy object. Let one server process own the opaque OS object, and multiple client processes access it via IPC calls to the server. > I don't think he has Python objects to work with. I'm persuaded when > he says: "when you're talking about large, intricate data structures > (which include opaque OS object refs that use process-associated > allocators), even a shared memory region between the child process and > the parent can't do the job." > > Why aren't you persuaded? I am persuaded that shared memory may be difficult in that particular case. I am not persuaded that multiple processes cannot be used, because one can let one server process own the object. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list