Sounds cool to me. If you come up with a solution thats lightweight,
I'd be very interested to know what you used and what it took to set
up.
-joe
On 5/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, in your case I would (and actually am) rather use some kind of
> batching system (torque in my case).
> But the problem is that I would very much have a version of the
> system, when only one machine is available that would do all the work
> on the background with perhaps some lower priority. And it seems
> really strange that it's not a trivial task just to spawn a child
> process and continue the parent. I have a feeling that it is still
> perfectly doable.
>
> Ilja
>
> On May 8, 8:01 pm, "Joseph Heck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For a light (i.e. short) duration process that you want results from
> > to return to the user, it's fairly straightforward. Here's some code
> > we're using to report our current code revision in an admin dashboard:
> >
> > def get_code_revision():
> > import os
> > x = os.popen("/usr/bin/svnversion /u/django/webcode")
> > versionstring = x.readline()
> > x.close()
> > return versionstring.strip()
> >
> > For spawning a longer running background process (as you mention
> > towards the end), this really isn't an appropriate mechanism. Instead
> > look for something where you can pass a "do this" message to another
> > mechanism that will do the work in the background. In our case, we
> > have a number of what we've terms "out of band" processing, and we use
> > simple tokens in the database as a quick and dirty message system. So
> > the view method will insert a row in the database, and a background
> > process will periodically poll the database for any rows to process.
> > It's not suitable to really high bandwidth messaging needs, but it
> > works nicely for us.
> >
> > Alternately, you can come up with some mechanism that is more "event
> > like" and asynchronous.
> >
> > -joe
> >
> > On 5/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've spent quite a lot of time trying to simply spawn a new process
> > > (by spawn I mean os.P_NOWAIT). The problem is that I cannot manage to
> > > get django not to halt after the execution of the process spawning
> > > command (the idea is that in views I want to start a background
> > > process that is quite time intense).
> >
> > > I've tried os.spawnl and subprocces.Popen, neither work. Or I'm just
> > > too n00b in Python and Django to understand how they should be
> > > handled. Perhaps anybody could help me? Pleease?
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ilja
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
