On Jun 11, 8:41 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 11, 1:17 pm, Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 11, 6:49 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 7:56 am, Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 6:56 am, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'm not saying it can't be made to work in your specific case - it > > > > > likely does work well for you. I'm saying it can't work *in > > > > > general*. Stretching it out for general use turns those little cracks > > > > > into massive canyons. A language needs a general mechanism that does > > > > > work - such as a polite cancellation API. > > > > > Neither *works in general* - polite cancellation *doesn't* work for > > > > our us. That's my point - you probably want *both* for different use > > > > cases. :-) > > > > Yeah, but mine's less icky. ;) > > > But requires more code. :-) > > Both require significant support from the implementation, and you're > not the one volunteering to write it (I am). Besides, they're > complementary, so we should have both anyway. The question is how > best to fit them together. > > > > I think the ideal for you would be a separate process. I'd also > > > suggest a restricted VM only in a thread, but that probably wouldn't > > > work for those long-running .NET APIs. Now, if those long- > > > running .NET APIs did polite cancellation, then you could combine that > > > with a restricted VM to get what you need. > > > No - we need to pull a large object graph *out* of the calculation > > (with no guarantee that it is even serializable) and the overhead for > > marshalling that puts using multiple processes out of the running. > > Ouch. So if it fails you want it isolated and killed, but if it > succeeds you want to share it with the rest of the program. > > > What we *want* is what we've got! And it works very well... None of > > the problems you predict. :-) > > Which points to an unknown mechanism protecting the vulnerable code, > such as using a different language. > > I think we've run out of material to discuss. We're about 80% in > agreement, with a 20% disagreement on philosophy.
:-) Michael -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
