Allen Bierbaum wrote: > Marcus Lindblom wrote: >> Anyway, if I would use multiple threads/aspects now, I would probably >> move pointers between thread very little, and when I did so, I would >> have to take care. So having to map a pointer between aspects would not >> be a big problem. But it depends on how one's application is structured. >> >> Do you do a lot of inter-thread communication with PyOpenSG? > > We call quite a bit of C++ code that does things for us in other > threads. For example the background loader code we added to OpenSG 2.0. > This is an area we want to expand on in the future.
I'd really have to get it working in our code. Oh well. Hopefully, with 2.0 and PyOpenSG, it'll be easier to pull the right strings. > If/when we can start using boost::function's as callbacks that work with > python callbacks, I think we will be making even more extensive use of > threads with OpenSG and python. I assume the overhead of python execution dwarfs the aspect-dereference cost. So ptr-performance isn't a big issue in the python wrappers, and you focus on usability instead. I've profiled our app and 10% of the time in OSG-dlls is spent in GetAspect(). That's quite a bit and therefore I'm happy to see c-pointers being introduced in C++. Hopefully, it will also reduce compile times & code size. (No more copy-ctoring of FCPtrs everywhere). Cheers, /Marcus ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Opensg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
