On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:34 AM, wrote:
> Monkey-patching multiprocessing.Process seems more fragile than subclassing
> it. It turned out that multiprocessing.pool.Pool was also very easy to
> subclass. But cleanly subclassing the Managers in multiprocessing.managers
> look much harder. I'
ChrisA -
>> I wasn't really asking "is multiprocessing appropriate?" but whether
>> there was a cleaner way to subclass multiprocessing.BaseManager() to
>> use a subclass of Process(). I can believe the answer is No, but
>> thought I'd ask.
>
> I've never subclassed BaseManager like this. It m
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I find that appreciation is greatly (perhaps
> infinitely) delayed whenever I reply "X is probably not what you want to do"
> without further explanation to a question of "can I get some advice on how to
> do X?". So, I do thank
On Monday, March 24, 2014 7:19:56 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Matt Newville
>
> > I'm maintaining a python interface to a C library for a distributed
> > control system (EPICS, sort of a SCADA system) that does a large
> > amount of relatively light-weight ne
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Matt Newville
wrote:
> I'm maintaining a python interface to a C library for a distributed
> control system (EPICS, sort of a SCADA system) that does a large
> amount of relatively light-weight network I/O. In order to keep many
> connections open and responsive,
I'm maintaining a python interface to a C library for a distributed
control system (EPICS, sort of a SCADA system) that does a large
amount of relatively light-weight network I/O. In order to keep many
connections open and responsive, and to provide a simple interface,
the python library keeps a
