Communication between remote scripts

Cameron Laird claird at lairds.us
Tue Sep 14 23:08:04 CEST 2004


In article <mailman.3305.1095168708.5135.python-list at python.org>,
Tim Golden  <tim.golden at viacom-outdoor.co.uk> wrote:
>| In article <MPG.1bb0b7d621a77bc598968c at news2.atlantic.net>, 
>| secun at yahoo.com says...
>| > I have a python script (A) that monitors a process (3rd 
>| party) on the 
>| > local machine (Windows).
>| > 
>| > I would like to create a second program on a remote Windows 
>| computer 
>| > that receives an update from program A periodically (maybe every 10 
>| > minutes or so), and tells it everything is running without 
>| a problem.
>| > 
>| > Can anyone recommend a good (and preferably simple) way for 
>| two programs 
>| > to communicate on a network? 
>
>| Am I correct in saying that remote objects are not really needed for 
>| this?
>
>You have several options:
>
>1) Email: sounds silly but is a perfectly reasonable solution if
>   you already had email infrastructure on both machines and
>   weren't that bothered about real time.
>
>2) UDP heartbeat: see this recipe in the Python Cookbook.
>   http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/52302
>
>3) xml-rpc: see the Python docs.
>   http://python.org/doc/2.3.4/lib/module-xmlrpclib.html
>
>4) Pyro (Python Remote Objects). See http://pyro.sf.net.
>   I suspect you don't want this, given your follow-up
>   question. But it will work and is easy enough.
>
>5) Straight socket server stuff. Again, python docs.
>   http://python.org/doc/2.3.4/lib/module-SocketServer.html
>
>6) SOAP / DCOM (if you fancy your chances) / CORBA, other acronyms.
>
>Personally, I think xml-rpc is a good way to go for
>general purpose stuff. But since you're really just
>after a heartbeat, the UDP solution might be best.
			.
			.
			.
Nice description.

If the problem involved just a bit more information and variability
than a heartbeat, I'd start to recommend async and/or Twisted.



More information about the Python-list mailing list