On 4 Gen, 07:13, Jean-Paul Calderone <calderone.jeanp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 6:17 pm, Adam Skutt <ask...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 5:24 pm, Jean-Paul Calderone <calderone.jeanp...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Of course. The whole point here is not about threads vs processes. > > > It's about shared memory concurrency vs non-shared memory > > > concurrency. You can implement both with threads and both with > > > processes, but threads are geared towards shared memory and processes > > > are geared towards non-shared memory. So what most people mean by > > > "use processes" is "don't use shared memory". > > > This is entirely my presumption, but I think if the OP were keenly > > aware of the differences between thread and processes, it's pretty > > likely he wouldn't have asked his question in the first place. > > Fair enough. :) > > > Also, I've written lots and lots of "use processes" code on multiple > > platforms, and much of it has used some sort of shared memory > > construct. It's actually pretty common, especially in code bases with > > a lot of history. Not all the world is Apache. > > Hee hee, Apache. :) > > > > > Adam- Nascondi testo citato > > - Mostra testo citato -
BTW thanks for the suggestions. As in my original code snippet, the shared object that the threads are using is the Queue, that itself implement locking mechanism so I don't have to worry about concurrent access. Regarding my question, it was just to have a hint on how a thread termination can be handled as, per example, you have the consumer-producer pattern. Mattia -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list