Hi George!
I was wrongly under the impression, that serializable-lambda are
supposed to work out of the box, when sending them over channels,
without needing to do any further work ("are serialized automatically"
instead of "can be serialized"). This is what I would have expected, as
it seems to be the case in other programming languages, where one can
simply send lambdas to other actors, which can, but don't have to, run
on other cores or other machines. A year ago or so there was an Racket
event in Berlin (Racket Summerfest), where people also tried to use
serializable-lambda to send them over channels, but did not succeed. I
do not know what the problems there were, as I did not attend that
specific workshop. However, I think some of the more knowledgeable
people of the Racket community might remember that workshop. Maybe there
also was some code from that event. If you know how to serialize those
serializable-lambdas, it is possible, that you could solve the problems
they faced.
I have a question regarding what you wrote: Is there a generic way to
serialize such lambdas, no matter what they look like?
I think that would be kind of necessary to abstract away the painful
points of coming up with a way of serializing the lambdas. It also seems
to be necessary for eventually creating a library, which provides a
process pool, as such library possibly should be easy to use and not
force the user to think about difficult thing, when the intention the
user has seems so simple "just do that on another core".
I have not read CSP and I know, that it is considered to be _the_
standard for multi processing, that much I have to admit. I am also not
trying to argue the concept away : ) Just saying, that in Racket it is
quite difficult (at least for me, although I have tried many hours, when
I was working on my project) to get multi processing done. I believe in
Python at least superficially one faces a similar situation: Threads on
same core, processes can go on other core, which is the parallel to
starting a new Racket VM, because it also starts a new Python process.
However, somehow it is easily possible to give a reference or a lambda
to a process pool in Python. I don't know the implementation details of
course.
Best regards,
Zelphir
On 10/9/19 1:36 PM, George Neuner wrote:
> 1) Serial lambdas and closures are in web-server-lib, not the
> framework. What is the problem including a library?
>
> 2) /serial-lambda/, /define-closure/, etc. only create functions that
> CAN BE serialized. You still do have to (de)serialize them.
>
> 3) You can send serialized code over place channels - it is just a
> string.
>
>
> The difficulty in sending code is making sure all the support context
> is available. To be sure, this can be a pain. But consider that for
> a local place you can send the name of a code file to dynamic-require
> ... and for a remote place you can send the file itself.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/0dbba335-fc99-b392-bc9b-2ad7736bf9ab%40gmail.com.
