[IPython-dev] Curses Frontend
ellisonbg at gmail.com
Fri Mar 12 14:49:30 EST 2010
I have been busy with other things lately, so sorry I haven't gotten
back to you sooner. I wanted to say a few more things about the
overall design of your curses based frontend. This also applies to
* For a long time we have wanted to move IPython to a 2 process model
that is similar to how Mathematica works. The idea is to have 1) a
simple lightweight frontend GUI/terminal/curses based process that
handles user input, prints output, etc and 2) a kernel/engine process
that actually executes the code.
* The GIL has made this effort very difficult to achieve. The problem
is that if the kernel executes extension code that doesn't release the
GIL, the kernel's will appear dead for the networking. Threads don't
help this and Twisted (which we use) doesn't either.
* Our solution so far has been to use Twisted and introduce an
additional process called the "controller" that manages traffic
between the frontend and kernel/engine. Twisted is amazing in many
ways, but it has a number of downsides:
- Twisted tends to be an all or nothing thing. Thus, it has been
quite difficult to integrate with other approaches and it is also
difficult to *force* everyone to use Twisted. Also, using Twisted
forces us to have a very constrained threading model that is super
infelxible. I can give more details on this if needed.
- It looks like Twisted will make the transition to Python 3k *very*
slowly (after zope, after everyone drops python 2.x support, etc.).
IPython, on the other hand needs to move to Python 3k quickly as so
many people use it.
- As we have spent more time looking at network protocols, we are more
and more convinced that a pure RPC style network approach is really
insufficient. What we really need is more of an asynchronous
messaging architecture that supports different messaging topologies.
- Twisted is slow for how we are using. For some of the things we
would like to do, we need C/C++ speed networking.
So.....for the last while we have been looking at alternatives.
Initially we were hopeful about AMQP:
AMQP looks really nice, but 1) is very complex and heavyweight, 2)
adopts a very specific model of messaging that looks to be too limited
for what we want.
Recently, however, we learned of 0MQ:
Zeromq has been developed by some of the same folks as AMQP, but with
a different emphasis:
* As fast as can be (written in C++). For somethings it is faster
than raw TCP sockets!
* Super simple API, wire protocol, etc.
* Lightweight and easy to install.
* All the network IO and message queuing are done in a C++ thread, so
it can happen without the GIL being involved.
This last point is the most important thing about 0MQ. It means that
a process can run non-GIL releasing extension code and still do all
the network IO and message queuing.
I have tested out 0MQ quite a bit and have created new Cython based
bindings to 0MQ:
Here is a Py0MQ example of what an IPython kernel would look like:
So....my thoughts right now are that this is the direction we are
headed. Thus, I think the model you should use in designing the
frontend is this:
* Cureses/urwid based frontend that ....
* Talks to IPython kernel over...
Obviously, you are free to use a 1 process model where Ipython runs in
the same process as the curses stuff, but you will run into all the
same problems that we have had for years. I can ellaborate further if
you want. What do you think about this plan?
More information about the IPython-dev