2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters
paul at boddie.org.uk
Fri Nov 7 11:46:19 CET 2008
On 7 Nov, 03:02, sturlamolden <sturlamol... at yahoo.no> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 12:22 am, Walter Overby <walter.ove... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I read Andy to stipulate that the pipe needs to transmit "hundreds of
> > megs of data and/or thousands of data structure instances." I doubt
> > he'd be happy with memcpy either. My instinct is that contention for
> > a lock could be the quicker option.
> If he needs to communicate that amount of data very often, he has a
> serious design problem.
As far as I can tell, he wants to keep the data in one place and just
pass a pointer around between execution contexts. The apparent issue
with using shared memory segments for this is that he relies on
existing components which have their own allocation preferences. So
although you or I might choose shared memory if writing this stuff
from scratch, he doesn't appear to have this option.
The inquirer hasn't acknowledged my remarks about tinypy, but I know
that if I were considering dropping $40000 and/or 2-3 man-months, I'd
at least have a look at what those people have done and whether
there's any mileage in using it before starting a new, embeddable
implementation of Python from scratch.
More information about the Python-list