2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters

Andy O'Meara andy55 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 24 15:58:06 CEST 2008


On Oct 24, 9:35 am, sturlamolden <sturlamol... at yahoo.no> wrote:
> Instead of "appdomains" (one interpreter per thread), or free
> threading, you could use multiple processes. Take a look at the new
> multiprocessing module in Python 2.6.

That's mentioned earlier in the thread.

>
> There is a fundamental problem with using homebrew loading of multiple
> (but renamed) copies of PythonXX.dll that is easily overlooked. That
> is, extension modules (.pyd) are DLLs as well.

Tell me about it--there's all kinds of problems and maintenance
liabilities with our approach.  That's why I'm here talking about this
stuff.

> There are other options as well:
>
> - Use IronPython. It does not have a GIL.
>
> - Use Jython. It does not have a GIL.
>
> - Use pywin32 to create isolated outproc COM servers in Python. (I'm
> not sure what the effect of inproc servers would be.)
>
> - Use os.fork() if your platform supports it (Linux, Unix, Apple,
> Cygwin, Windows Vista SUA). This is the standard posix way of doing
> multiprocessing. It is almost unbeatable if you have a fast copy-on-
> write implementation of fork (that is, all platforms except Cygwin).

This is discussed earlier in the thread--they're unfortunately all
out.




More information about the Python-list mailing list