On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:45:40 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM, <j....@itu.edu> wrote:
> > I have used multiprocessing before when I wrote some parallelized code.
> > That program required significant communication between processes, and it's
> > overkill for my purpose here. I don't need communication between the
> > spawning (live data) program and the spawned program. In fact, to the
> > extent that the live data program has to pay attention to anything besides
> > the data stream, I think it could be bad.
> >
> > I have been investigating the subprocess module. I'm looking for something
> > which behaves like subprocess.run("python3 my_program.py"), but which does
> > not "Wait for command to complete, then return a CompletedProcess instance."
> >
> As far as I know, subprocess.run() will always wait for the process to
> complete. But you can use the Popen constructor.
Thank you Chris, subprocess.Popen worked nicely for me. I had to set
shell=True to make it work, but it did work. All parts of my program now
operate independently and crash-free!
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
