2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters

Paul Boddie paul at boddie.org.uk
Wed Oct 29 14:20:06 CET 2008

On 28 Okt, 21:03, Rhamphoryncus <rha... at gmail.com> wrote:
> * get a short-term bodge that works, like hacking the 3rd party
> library to use your shared-memory allocator.  Should be far less work
> than hacking all of CPython.

Did anyone come up with a reason why shared memory couldn't be used
for the purpose described by the inquirer? With the disadvantages of
serialisation circumvented, that would leave issues of contention, and
on such matters I have to say that I'm skeptical about solutions which
try and make concurrent access to CPython objects totally transparent,
mostly because it appears to be quite a lot of work to get right (as
POSH illustrates, and as your own safethread work shows), and also
because systems where contention is spread over a large "surface" (any
object can potentially be accessed by any process at any time) are
likely to incur a lot of trouble for the dubious benefit of being
vague about which objects are actually being shared.


More information about the Python-list mailing list