In case you haven't heard about it, ActiveState has recently signed a
contract with Microsoft to do some work on Perl on win32.
One interesting aspect of this for Python is the specific work being
performed. From the FAQ on this joint effort, one gets, under "What is
the scope of the work that is being done?":
This implementation of fork() will clone the running interpreter
and create a new interpreter with its own thread, but running in the
same process space. The goal is to achieve functional equivalence to
fork() on UNIX systems without suffering the performance hit of the
process creation overhead on Win32 platforms.
Emulating fork() within a single process needs the ability to run
multiple interpreters concurrently in separate threads. Perl version
5.005 has experimental support for this in the form of the PERL_OBJECT
build option, but it has some shortcomings. PERL_OBJECT needs a C++
compiler, and currently only works on Windows. ActiveState will be
working to provide support for revamped support for the PERL_OBJECT
functionality that will run on every platform that Perl will build on,
and will no longer require C++ to work. This means that other operating
systems that lack fork() but have support for threads (such as VMS and
MacOS) will benefit from this aspect of the work.
Any guesses as to whether we could hijack this work if/when it is released
as Open Source?
Speaking of licensing issues...
I seem to have read somewhere that the two Medusa files are under a
separate license. Although, reading the files now, it seems they are
The issue that I'm really raising is that Python should ship with a
single license that covers everything. Otherwise, it will become very
complicated for somebody to figure out which pieces fall under what
Is there anything in the distribution that is different than the normal
For example, can I take the async modules and build a commercial product
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
> > Not a Mac programmer, but I recall that when Steve Jobs came back,
> > they published a schedule that said threads would be available a
> > couple releases down the road. Schedules only move one way, so I'd
> > guess ActiveState is premature.
which was just my way of saying that "did he perhaps
refer to OS X ?".
or are they adding real threads to good old MacOS too?