Tim Arnold wrote:
"Jan Kaliszewski" wrote in message
news:mailman.895.1251958800.2854.python-l...@python.org...
06:49:13 Scott David Daniels wrote:
Tim Arnold wrote:
(1) what's wrong with having each chapter in a separate thread? Too
much going on for a single processor?
Many more threads
"Jan Kaliszewski" wrote in message
news:mailman.895.1251958800.2854.python-l...@python.org...
> 06:49:13 Scott David Daniels wrote:
>
>> Tim Arnold wrote:
>
>>> (1) what's wrong with having each chapter in a separate thread? Too
>>> much going on for a single processor?
>
>> Many more threads t
06:49:13 Scott David Daniels wrote:
Tim Arnold wrote:
(1) what's wrong with having each chapter in a separate thread? Too
much going on for a single processor?
Many more threads than cores and you spend a lot of your CPU switching
tasks.
In fact, python threads work relatively the best
Tim Arnold wrote:
"MRAB" wrote in message
news:mailman.835.1251886213.2854.python-l...@python.org...
I don't need that many threads; just create a few to do the work and let
each do multiple chapters, something like this:
a very pretty implementation with worker code:
while True:
"MRAB" wrote in message
news:mailman.835.1251886213.2854.python-l...@python.org...
> Tim Arnold wrote:
>> Hi, I've been using the threading module with each thread as a key in a
>> dictionary. I've been reading about Queues though and it looks like
>> that's what I should be using instead. Jus
Tim Arnold wrote:
Hi, I've been using the threading module with each thread as a key in a
dictionary. I've been reading about Queues though and it looks like that's
what I should be using instead. Just checking here to see if I'm on the
right path.
The code I have currently compiles a bunch of
