<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/28/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Trent Mick</b> <<a href="mailto:trentm@activestate.com">trentm@activestate.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Brett Cannon wrote:<br>> > > The idea is that there be a separate Python interpreter per web<br>> > > browser page instance.<br>><br>> > I think there may be scaling issues there. JavaScript isn't doing that
<br>> > is it, do you know? As well, that doesn't seem like it would translate<br>> > well to sharing execution between separate chrome windows in a<br>> > non-browser XUL/Mozilla-based app.<br>
><br>> And if you don't think it is going to scale, how do you think it should<br>> be done?<br><br>That was an ignorant response (I haven't read what you've suggested and<br>really though about it). Sorry for the unsubstantiated babbling.
<br><br>To Bob's question on how much interpreter state *is* there: I don't<br>know. Have you done any measuring of that, Brett?</blockquote><div><br><br>Not yet; as of right now I just want a coherent security model since this whole idea is dead in the water without it. But I do know that interpreters are basically execution stack, a new sys module, and a new
sys.modules. It isn't horrendously heavy. And C extension modules are shared between them.<br></div><br></div>-Brett<br>