On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Michael Foord firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote: >
Jesse Noller wrote:
Georg kindly published the PEP I submitted last night to the PEP site:
This PEP includes some of the previous discussion on the processing module's inclusion, and I hope clears up/clarifies some of the goals/non goals and issues. I also included benchmark data and a link to the code used for said benchmarks.
I would like to renew the discussion now that "there is a PEP" to see if there are any outstanding things people would like to get resolved. I chose to continue to push it for 2.6 / 3.0 inclusion due to feedback both here and elsewhere that people would rather see this in sooner in some form, rather than later (i.e.: 2.7/3.1).
+1 from me (under the 'multiprocessing' name, with the understanding that some code duplication with other parts of the standard library may still remain in 2.6/3.0).
+1 from me as well.
I think multiple-processes is over played as a concurrency solution in Python (where you need to marshal lots of data in and out, the overheads of multiple processes can be very expensive) - but it is a very good solution for some problems.
Agreed - this is a "step" rather than the final solution. As I pointed out in the PEP this is a method to side-step GIL limitations rather than to address the larger "GIL issue", I am implicitly assuming that no movement will be made on that front until the bulk of Adam Olsen's safethreading work is rolled into future versions.