2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters

Michael Sparks ms at cerenity.org
Tue Oct 28 11:30:54 CET 2008

Philip Semanchuk wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Michael Sparks wrote:
>> Glenn Linderman wrote:
>>> In the module multiprocessing environment could you not use shared
>>> memory, then, for the large shared data items?
>> If the poshmodule had a bit of TLC, it would be extremely useful for
>> this,... http://poshmodule.sourceforge.net/
> Last time I checked that was Windows-only. Has that changed?

I've only tested it under Linux where it worked, but does clearly need a bit
of work :)

> The only IPC modules for Unix that I'm aware of are one which I
> adopted (for System V semaphores & shared memory) and one which I
> wrote (for POSIX semaphores & shared memory).
> http://NikitaTheSpider.com/python/shm/
> http://semanchuk.com/philip/posix_ipc/

I'll take a look at those - poshmodule does need a bit of TLC and doesn't
appear to be maintained.

> If anyone wants to wrap POSH cleverness around them, go for it! If
> not, maybe I'll make the time someday.

I personally don't have the time do do this, but I'd be very interested in
hearing someone building an up-to-date version. (Indeed, something like
this would be extremely useful for everyone to have in the standard library
now that the multiprocessing library is in the standard library)


More information about the Python-list mailing list