> >I don't mind replying to the mailing list unless it annoys someone? Maybe > >>some people could be interested by this discussion. > > I am finding it a bit difficult to follow this thread. I am not sure who is > saying what. Also I don't know if you are talking about an entirely new > system or the stackless.py module. An entirely new system/way of doing things -- meaning I don't think the stackless style would fit. Originally, I was hoping for some way to achieve what I want in Python across multiple cores, but I'm finding there is no such primitives to do that effectively. I know the basics of how I would do it in a lower level language. Yes, there are many different topics that this brought up. Here's a summary: * I wanted to work on a different way of doing things (different than stackless)... but I needed lower level primitives that allowed me to pass data back and forth between threads using shared memory queues or pipes (instead of the current method that copies the data back and forth) * I then asked about the difficulty in doing some form of limited shared memory (one that wouldn't involve a GIL overhaul) * A branch of the discussion involved people discuss various locking problems that might cause... * The author of Kamaelia posted a message and we had a brief discussion down that road. (His project is very similar to what I want to do.) * Gabriel mentioned his project and we had a brief discussion. His project has some similarities ... but still is probably too different for my needs, but maybe would be very interesting to other people here. * In one of the emails, I brought up a possible solution to offering shared memory "message passing" that would not require locks of locking issues... but it really is too much for me to get involved with now. ... and I guess by now the discussion has pretty much died off as there was really nothing more....
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
