On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:32 PM, <jlada...@itu.edu> wrote:
> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:45:40 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM, <j....@itu.edu> wrote:
>> > I have used multiprocessing before when I wrote some parallelized code.
>> > That program required significant communication between processes, and
>> > it's overkill for my purpose here. I don't need communication between the
>> > spawning (live data) program and the spawned program. In fact, to the
>> > extent that the live data program has to pay attention to anything besides
>> > the data stream, I think it could be bad.
>> >
>> > I have been investigating the subprocess module. I'm looking for
>> > something which behaves like subprocess.run("python3 my_program.py"), but
>> > which does not "Wait for command to complete, then return a
>> > CompletedProcess instance."
>> >
>> As far as I know, subprocess.run() will always wait for the process to
>> complete. But you can use the Popen constructor.
>
> Thank you Chris, subprocess.Popen worked nicely for me. I had to set
> shell=True to make it work, but it did work. All parts of my program now
> operate independently and crash-free!
>
Hmm. Can you post your code? Often shell=True isn't needed.
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
