On Oct 29, 7:20 am, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 28 Okt, 21:03, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I believe large existing libraries were the reason. Thus my suggestion of the evil fork+mmap abuse. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
