Hi VanL,
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:37 PM, VanL wrote:
> (...) There is no shared state between the spaces/threads unless explicit
> synchronization is required and asked for by the programmer. You can peg one
> thread/space without affecting the others.
Sure, feel free to try this out. It requ
On Jul 16, 2011 5:13 AM, "Armin Rigo" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, VanL wrote:
> > I think that a better (read: closer term, and more likely to be
performant)
> > answer is to create multiple interpreters, *each with their own GIL,
each in
> > their own thread,* and connec
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, VanL wrote:
> I think that a better (read: closer term, and more likely to be performant)
> answer is to create multiple interpreters, *each with their own GIL, each in
> their own thread,* and connect them via channels (essentially a pair of
> queues).
That
On 7/15/2011 2:31 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
I know, this is kind of hand-waving what has to be done, I would
probably start with having two interpreters in one executable,
probably by having two object spaces.
Cheers,
fijal
And if I may ask, what are you trying to achieve?
Two (or more)
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, VanL wrote:
>> On 7/15/2011 1:50 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>>
>>> By design, a single process thing is slightly less secure. If you say
>>> find a way to corrupt random memory, you can modify the ot
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, VanL wrote:
> On 7/15/2011 1:50 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>
>> By design, a single process thing is slightly less secure. If you say
>> find a way to corrupt random memory, you can modify the other process,
>> it's still only very slightly though. The sandboxi
On 7/15/2011 1:50 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
By design, a single process thing is slightly less secure. If you say
find a way to corrupt random memory, you can modify the other process,
it's still only very slightly though. The sandboxing approach should
work quite nicely, the hard part would
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:09 PM, VanL wrote:
> I have a couple questions about the sandboxing feature:
>
> - Currently this is a two-process model, but early on the assertion was made
> that this could be done in a single process, perhaps but not necessarily
> separated by two OS-level threads. Is
I have a couple questions about the sandboxing feature:
- Currently this is a two-process model, but early on the assertion was
made that this could be done in a single process, perhaps but not
necessarily separated by two OS-level threads. Is this (still?) true?
What would you need to invoke
