[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

lekma added the comment: thanks guys -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

Jesse Noller added the comment: committed in r71041 on python trunk, provided clean buildbots, we will merge to python 3.1 -- resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

R. David Murray added the comment: >I'm a bit confused here. The patch only adds a small feature to >BaseManager and subtypes (the same way Pool does it already). AFAICT the >Thread/Process API equivalence is preserved. Am I missing something? No, I'm the one who was missing something. I obvio

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

lekma added the comment: > I'm thinking about it and plan on discussing it with other core devs > today. Altering the Api is not something done lightly yep. Thanks for considering it. -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

Jesse Noller added the comment: On Mar 31, 2009, at 2:12 AM, lekma wrote: > > lekma added the comment: > > The same against py3k. > > Jesse, is there any chance that this will make it in, or should I just > go and implement a local solution? > I'm thinking about it and plan on discussing it

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

lekma added the comment: The same against py3k. Jesse, is there any chance that this will make it in, or should I just go and implement a local solution? -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file13508/Issue5585_2_py3k.patch ___ Python tracker

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

lekma added the comment: > Right, it's just the Thread/Process API equivalance. I'm not saying > it's a stopper, but the docs would probably need to be modified > accordingly. I'm a bit confused here. The patch only adds a small feature to BaseManager and subtypes (the same way Pool does it alr

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

Changes by Jesse Noller : -- priority: -> low ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pytho

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

Jesse Noller added the comment: I know, but tests (like the ones you outlined) would also make it more compelling -- ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

R. David Murray added the comment: By the way, in case it isn't clear, I defer to Jesse on whether or not it makes sense to accept this :) -- ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

R. David Murray added the comment: Right, it's just the Thread/Process API equivalance. I'm not saying it's a stopper, but the docs would probably need to be modified accordingly. As for tests, even just one that would prove that the method will be called and do something trivial would be a go

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

lekma added the comment: AFAIK there is no equivalent to the managers api in threading. As for the tests, what kind of tests would you like to see? Jesse, some thoughts on that? -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

Changes by Jesse Noller : -- assignee: -> jnoller ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.p

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

R. David Murray added the comment: Note that the Multiprocessing docs say that the Process "follows the API of threading.Thread," and this would represent a (minor) divergence. I also note that the patch does not contain any tests. -- assignee: jnoller -> keywords: +patch nosy: +bitda

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

Changes by Jesse Noller : -- assignee: -> jnoller keywords: +needs review -patch nosy: +jnoller ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

lekma added the comment: here is a patch doing just that (against trunk). ps: this is my first bug report and contribution to Python, please, be gentle :) -- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file13438/Issue5585.patch ___ Python tra

[issue5585] implement initializer for multiprocessing.BaseManager.start()

New submission from lekma : It would be useful to have the ability to run arbitrary code before a manager's server subprocess is started (I'd use this feature to install signal handlers for example). -- components: Library (Lib) messages: 84302 nosy: lekma severity: normal status: open t