Robin Becker wrote: > Robin Becker wrote: > >>Paul Rubin wrote: >> > > >>>This module might be of interest: http://poshmodule.sf.net >>> >> >>It seems it might be a bit out of date. I've emailed the author via sf, but >>no >>reply. Does anyone know if poshmodule works with latest stuff? > from the horse's mouth comes confirmation that POSH is in a Norwegian Blue condition
from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi, > > Sorry for the late reply; You're right in that the project is close to dead. > That's simply because I haven't had the time and motivation to maintain it, > or rather, to improve it to the point where it's more usable and bug-free. > Currently, I view POSH as a proof of concept that transparent access to > Python objects allocated in shared memory is feasible. The main limitation > of POSH is that it relies on the semantics of fork() to preserve the exact > same memory layout in parent and child processes; porting POSH to Windows or > other platforms without a fork() system call would be a challenge. Besides > that, the implementation could use a more efficient memory allocator, and > some features that sacrifice performance for flexibility probably need to be > rethought. It also badly needs a shared-memory blocking queue > implementation to support common programming models involving queues, and a > portable lock implementation for more architectures. These latter > improvements should be rather straightforward, but I don't know how to avoid > the fundamental limitation of relying on fork(). > > Feel free to repost these comments on comp.lang.python if you want. > > Cheers, > Steffen -- Robin Becker -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list