Tim Arnold wrote:
"MRAB" <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.835.1251886213.2854.python-l...@python.org...
I don't need that many threads; just create a few to do the work and let
each do multiple chapters, something like this:
a very pretty implementation with worker code:
while True:
chapter = self.chapter_queue.get()
if chapter is None:
# A None indicates that there are no more chapters.
break
chapter.compile()
# Put back the None so that the next thread will also see it.
self.chapter_queue.put(None)
and loading like:
for c in self.document.chapter_objects:
chapter_queue.put(<some work>)
chapter_queue.put(None)
...
# The threads will finish when they see the None in the queue.
for t in thread_list:
t.join()
hi, thanks for that code. It took me a bit to understand what's going on,
but I think I see it now.
Still, I have two questions about it:
(1) what's wrong with having each chapter in a separate thread? Too much
going on for a single processor?
Many more threads than cores and you spend a lot of your CPU switching
tasks.
(2) The None at the end of the queue...I thought t.join() would just work.
Why do we need None?
Because your workers aren't finished, they are running trying to get
something more to do out of the queue. The t.join() would cause a
deadlock w/o the None.
--Scott David Daniels
scott.dani...@acm.org
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
