Addition of multiprocessing ill-advised? (was: Python 3.0.1)

Jesse Noller jnoller at gmail.com
Wed Jan 28 14:28:34 CET 2009


On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:36 PM, James Mills
<prologic at shortcircuit.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Ben Finney <ben at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>> Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com> writes:
>>> I think that [Python 2.6 was a rushed release]. 2.6 showed it in the
>>> inclusion (later recognizable as somewhat ill-advised so late in the
>>> day) of multiprocessing […]
>
> Steve: It's just a new package - it used to be available
> as a 3rd-party package. I dare say it most definitely was
> -not- ill-advised. It happens to be a great addition to the
> standard library.
>
>> What was ill-advised about the addition of the 'multiprocessing'
>> module to Python 2.6? I ask because I haven't yet used it in anger,
>> and am not sure what problems have been found in it.
>
> I have found no problems with it - I've recently integrated it with my
> event/component framework (1). In my library I use Process, Pipe
> and Value.
>
> cheers
> James
>

Awesome James, I'll be adding this to both the multiprocessing talk,
and the distributed talk. Let me know if you have any issues.

-jesse



More information about the Python-list mailing list