On 18Jun2012 00:17, John O'Hagan wrote:
| On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:27:45 -0400
| Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
| > Not "after each event is read" but when a new event is
| > generated/inserted. The list is not a FIFO where new events are added to
| > the end, but more of a priority queue where the l
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:27:45 -0400
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:01:12 +1000, John O'Hagan
> declaimed the following in
> gmane.comp.python.general:
>
> >
> > That looks like a possible way to do all the streams in a single thread,
> > although it works a little differently
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0400
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 03:24:13 +1000, John O'Hagan
> declaimed the following in
> gmane.comp.python.general:
>
>
> > I should have made it clear that I'm not using threads to speed anything up;
> > each thread produces an independentl
> > > My question is, on a single core machine, what are the pros and cons of
> > > threads vs subprocesses in a setup like this?
> > >
> [...]
> >
> > Two key phrases in your message; CPU-intensive,
> > single-core-machine. If these have the conventional meaning, you're
> > better off doing all
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:51:01 -0400
Dave Angel wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 09:49 AM, John O'Hagan wrote:
> > I have a program in which the main thread launches a number of CPU-intensive
> > worker threads. For each worker thread two python subprocesses are started,
[...]
> >
> > So far so good, but it
On 06/15/2012 09:49 AM, John O'Hagan wrote:
> I have a program in which the main thread launches a number of CPU-intensive
> worker threads. For each worker thread two python subprocesses are started,
> each of which runs in its own terminal: one displays output received from the
> worker thread vi
