[pypy-dev] Syntax for the 'transaction' module

[Skip Montanaro]

Armin,

I apologize, I'm only half paying attention, trying to follow along.
What does "ame" stand for?  Is there some reason a more descriptive
name isn't used?  "Atomic MEmory"?  "Armin's Magic Enterprise?"

Thx,

Skip

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Armin Rigo <arigo at tunes.org> wrote:
> Hi Holger,
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 16:48, holger krekel <holger at merlinux.eu> wrote:
>> Maybe "atomic" could become a __pypy__ builtin and there could be a "ame" or
>> so package which atomic-using apps could depend on? In any case,
>> I really like the twist of "To remedy the GIL use AME" :)
>
> Yes, indeed, a private name in the __pypy__ module looks fine.  The
> applications are supposed to use the "ame" module or package (or
> whatever name makes sense, but I'm getting convinced that
> "transaction" is not a good one).  The "ame" module re-exports
> __pypy__._atomic as ame.atomic for general use, but also offers more
> stuff like the Runner class with add()/run() methods.
>
> Also, again, it doesn't necessarily make sense to force a lexically
> nested usage of ame.atomic, so we could replace __pypy__._atomic with
> two primitives __pypy__._atomic_start and _atomic_stop, re-exported in
> the "ame" module, and write the "ame.atomic" context manager in pure
> Python.
>
>> I am wondering how this all applies to the execnet-execution model, btw.
>> (http://codespeak.net/execnet for those who wonder what i mean)
>> remote_exec()s on the same gateway run currently in different threads
>> and thus only send/receive needs to use "with atomic", right?
>
> In my proposal, existing applications run fine, using multiple cores
> if they are based on multiple threads.  You use "with atomic" to have
> an additional degree of synchronization when you don't want to worry
> about locks & friends (which should be *always*, but is still an
> optional benefit in this model).  Maybe you're just talking about
> simplifying the implementation of execnet's channels to use "with
> atomic" instead of acquiring and releasing locks.  Then yes, could be,
> as long as you remember that "with atomic" gives neither more nor less
> than its naive implementation: "don't release the GIL there".
>
>
> A bientôt,
>
> Armin.
> _______________________________________________
> pypy-dev mailing list
> pypy-dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev