On Sep 12, 2:14 pm, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > TheFlyingDutchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Python user and advocate Bruce Eckel is disappointed with the > > > additions (or lack of additions) in Python 3: > > > >http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=214112 > > > That article is pretty weak. > > It is responded to by Guido here: > > "A Response to Bruce Eckel" > <URL:http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=214325>
In that blog, Guido says: """Concurrency: It seems we're now happily out exploring here. I'm looking forward to benchmarks showing that PP or similar (or dissimilar!) solutions actually provide a performance gain. Another route I'd like to see explored is integrating one such solution into an existing web framework (or perhaps as WSGI middleware) so that web applications have an easy way out without redesigning their architecture.""" Maybe I don't fully understand where Guido is coming from, but solutions for spreading web applications across multiple processes have been available for a long time in solutions such as mod_python and mod_fastcgi. With a view to improving further on these solutions mod_wsgi has also been created. All these solutions either use the multi process nature of the web server, or themselves use multiple daemon processes to which requests are distributed by Apache. End result is that one can make better use of multi processor or multi core machines. Also, when using multi threaded Apache worker MPM, because a lot of stuff is not even done in Python code, such as static file serving, multiple cores can even be used within the same process. Thus, in the larger context of how Apache is implemented and what web applications provide, the GIL isn't as big a problem as some like to believe it is as far as preventing proper utilisation of the machines resources. FWIW, I have blogged my own response to Guido's comment above at: http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2007/09/parallel-python-discussion-and-modwsgi.html Now over the years I have seen a lot of Python developers showing quite a dislike for using Python integrated with Apache. As a result the last thing people seem to want to do is fix such solutions up and make them work better. Reality is though that unless a very good solution for hosting Python with Apache comes up, you will probably never see good cheap commodity web hosting for Python. Older solutions simply aren't safe to use or are hard to set up and manage. Creating lots of distinct Python processes and proxying to them, like the purists would like to see, simply isn't going to happen as such setups are too hard to manage and use up too much resources on a large scale. Web hosting companies want something simple which they can integrate into their existing PHP focused Apache installations and which don't chew up huge amounts of additional resources, thereby forcing a reduction in their site densities. To that end, we still have a way to go. An older blog entry of mine where I have covered these problems is: http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2007/07/commodity-shared-hosting-and-modwsgi.html Graham -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
