2012/8/1 Roy Smith <r...@panix.com>: > In article <mailman.2809.1343809166.4697.python-l...@python.org>, > Laszlo Nagy <gand...@shopzeus.com> wrote: > >> Yes, I think that is correct. Instead of detaching a child process, you >> can create independent processes and use other frameworks for IPC. For >> example, Pyro. It is not as effective as multiprocessing.Queue, but in >> return, you will have the option to run your service across multiple >> servers. > > You might want to look at beanstalk (http://kr.github.com/beanstalkd/). > We've been using it in production for the better part of two years. At > a 30,000 foot level, it's an implementation of queues over named pipes > over TCP, but it takes care of a zillion little details for you. > > Setup is trivial, and there's clients for all sorts of languages. For a > Python client, go with beanstalkc (pybeanstalk appears to be > abandonware). >> >> The most effective IPC is usually through shared memory. But there is no >> OS independent standard Python module that can communicate over shared >> memory. > > It's true that shared memory is faster than serializing objects over a > TCP connection. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine anything > written in Python where you would notice the difference. > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
That does look nice and I would like to have something like that.. But since I have to convince my boss of another external dependency I think it might be worth to try out zeromq instead, which can also do similar things and looks more powerful, what do you think? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
