[Python-ideas] Preparing an existing RPC mechanism for the standard library
ggpolo at gmail.com
Mon Mar 24 11:31:38 CET 2008
2008/3/24, Tal Einat <taleinat at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Guilherme Polo <ggpolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've read this idea about "preparing an existing RPC mechanism for the
> > > standard library" at StandardLibrary ideas and I would be interested
> > > in doing it, but as you all know, including something into stdlib is
> > > not exactly easy and shouldn't be anyway. Also I'm not even sure if
> > > this idea is still desired.
> > >
> > > I'm considering the inclusion of rpyc, with appropriate changes
> > > (possibly lots). And would like to know your opinions towards this.
> > >
> > I know from my end I am not even familiar with rpyc so I have no
> > comment. And I suspect most other people have a similar reason for
> > having not commented on this so far.
> I believe the reason that the OP is considering RPyC is because it is
> the most Pythonic RPC mechanism of the lot. That, and its relative
> simplicity, are the reasons I recently chose RPyC for a project, and
> it worked out pretty well. If any RPC mechanism is added to the
> standard library, I hope it has an API as Pythonic as RPyC's!
> I ran into two main problems while using RPyC (v2.60), neither of them
> show breakers for me. The first was that debugging it can be hard
> because its exception handling (propagation across the RPC link) isn't
> good enough (yet). The second is that the RPC is two-way and very
> transparent, so that once the application became complex I had to take
> special measures to avoid deadlocks. All things considered, RPyC got
> the job done.
> I know RPyC's developer and maintainer, Tomer Filiba, and he's a great
> guy, though recently much busier than he used to be. He had plans to
> add distributed computing capabilities to RPyC in version 3.0, and
> probably quite a few other features, but AFAIK development is
> currently frozen. I'm CC-ing the RPyC newsgroup in hopes that he (and
> the users) will comment on this.
I've talked with him before posting this here Tal. Also, the
development of the new version is active.
> - Tal
-- Guilherme H. Polo Goncalves
More information about the Python-ideas