On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:19:14PM -0300, Carlos Ribeiro wrote:
> But the fact is that today you have to deal with parallelism in one form or
> another. It can be threads or multiple processes, it's unavoidable. And it
> will get worse with newer CPUs.
Threads are evil but processes are not - they are completely separated
and cannot destroy each other's memory. Processes have less problem (though
they still need proper synchronisation).
> Your argument reminds me of a recent post by Guido van Rossum. If I remember
> it right it was one of the posts regarding Python 3k, someone asked if there
> were any plans to remove the GIL. Guido said that the someone wrote a patch
> to remove the GIL. It was very complex and the performance was poor, because
> of the number of extra checks. In the end it became impossible to keep the
> patch synchronized with the development on the main Python trunk.
I remember that thread, and Guido resolved that processes are better
than threads even on multicore CPUs. Multiprocess model with IPC is the
future of Python (and I wholeheartedly agree with this).
> Back to the original question, wich asked about a how to for SQLObjects and
> threads. I believe the same question can be applied if you resort to
> multiple processes. What's the best way to do it, specially for long running
> applications?
What problems - except of caching - do you foresee?
Oleg.
--
Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
sqlobject-discuss mailing list
sqlobject-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss
