gervaz <ger...@gmail.com> writes: > On 3 Gen, 22:17, Adam Skutt <ask...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 3, 4:06 pm, Jean-Paul Calderone <calderone.jeanp...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > Multiple processes, ok, but then regarding processes' interruption >> > > there will be the same problems pointed out by using threads? >> >> > No. Processes can be terminated easily on all major platforms. See >> > `os.kill`. >> >> Yes, but that's not the whole story, now is it? It's certainly much >> more reliable and easier to kill a process. It's not any easier to do >> it and retain defined behavior, depending on exactly what you're >> doing. For example, if you kill it while it's in the middle of >> updating shared memory, you can potentially incur undefined behavior >> on the part of any process that can also access shared memory. >> >> In short, taking a program that uses threads and shared state and >> simply replacing the threads with processes will likely not gain you a >> thing. It entirely depends on what those threads are doing and how >> they do it. >> >> Adam > > As per the py3.1 documentation, os.kill is only available in the Unix > os. Regarding the case pointed out by Adam I think the best way to > deal with it is to create a critical section so that the shared memory > will be updated in an atomic fashion. Btw it would be useful to take a > look at some actual code/documentation in order to understand how > others dealt with the problem...
There is the multiprocessing module. It's a good start, and works cross-platform. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
