Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Jason Zheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm concerned about portability of my code. It will be run on
>> multiple machines with mixed Python 2.4 and 2.5 environments.
>
> I don't think there is a really clean way to handle this.
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Jason Zheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>>>> greg wrote:
>>> Actually, it's not that bad. _cleanup only polls the instances that
>>> are no longer referenced by user code, but still running.
Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> Sure!
>
> You could get rid of this by sleeping until a SIGCHLD arrived maybe.
Yah, I could also just dump Popen class and use fork(). But then what's
the point of having an abstraction layer any more?
>> This can still be a problem for applications that call wait in a
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>> greg wrote:
>
> Actually, it's not that bad. _cleanup only polls the instances that
> are no longer referenced by user code, but still running. If you hang
> on to Popen instances, they won't be added to _active, and __init__
> won't reap them (_active is only populated f
Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> The problem you are having is you are letting Popen do half the job
> and doing the other half yourself.
Except that I never wanted Popen to do any thread management for me to
begin with. Popen class has advertised itself as a replacement for
os.popen, popen2, popen4, an
Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've figured out what's going on. The Popen class has a
>> __del__ method which does a non-blocking wait of its own.
>> So you need to keep the Popen instance for each subprocess
>> alive until your wait call has cleaned it up.
>
> I d
greg wrote:
> Jason Zheng wrote:
>> Hate to reply to my own thread, but this is the working program that
>> can demonstrate what I posted earlier:
>
> I've figured out what's going on. The Popen class has a
> __del__ method which does a non-blocking wait of
Greg,
That explains it! Thanks a lot for your help. I guess this is something
they do to prevent zombie threads?
~Jason
greg wrote:
> Jason Zheng wrote:
>> Hate to reply to my own thread, but this is the working program that
>> can demonstrate what I posted earlier:
>
greg wrote:
> Jason Zheng wrote:
>> while (True):
>> pid = os.wait()
>> ...
>> if (someCondition):
>> break
> > ...
>
> Are you sure that someCondition() always becomes true
> when the list of pids is empty? If not, you may end
>
Hate to reply to my own thread, but this is the working program that can
demonstrate what I posted earlier:
import os
from subprocess import Popen
pids = {}
counts = [0,0,0]
for i in xrange(3):
p = Popen('sleep 1', shell=True, cwd='/home',
stdout=file(os.devnull,'w'))
pids[p.pid] = i
This may be a silly question but is possible for os.wait() to lose track
of child processes? I'm running Python 2.4.4 on Linux kernel 2.6.20
(i686), gcc4.1.1, and glibc-2.5.
Here's what happened in my situation. I first created a few child
processes with Popen, then in a while(True) loop wait o
Steven Bethard wrote:
Jason Zheng wrote:
I'm wondering why python still has limited lambda support. What's
stopping the developers of python to support more lisp-like lambda
function?
This comes up every few weeks on the list. If you haven't already,
check the archive
I'm wondering why python still has limited lambda support. What's
stopping the developers of python to support more lisp-like lambda function?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
13 matches
Mail list logo
