In article <4b0b07a1$0$22159$9b622...@news.freenet.de>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > >In any case, I don't think you'll need a multi-process solution; a >single-process multi-threading approach will do fine. Just create >*another* thread, that runs at a low priority and is allowed to block. >Run the Python interpreter in that thread (create multiple of these if >you need them). Then, use some queuing producer-consumer communication >between the high-priority thread and the low priority thread. Have the >high priority threads put requests into the queue, and the low priority >thread take them from the queue, dispatching them to Python. Make sure >you use non-blocking synchronization on the queue, or else priority >inheritance if you can get permission to do so.
This is close to what I would recommend, but I would suggest that the low-priority thread make calls out to an external Python process; that way, you can have a Python worker pool of processes. Based on what I've seen posted over the years, I generally recommend against instantiating multiple interpreter instances (although I've seen some success stories, I've seen more people butting their heads against the brick wall). -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
