Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 23:54, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> [...]
>
>>The few times I have encountered anyone saying anything resembling "threading
>>is easy", it was because the full sentence went something like "threading is
>>easy if you use message passing and copy-on-send or release-reference-on-send
>>to communicate between threads, and limit the shared data structures to those
>>required to support the messaging infrastructure". And most of the time there
>>was an implied "compared to using semaphores and locks directly, " at the
>>start.
>
>
> LOL! So threading is easy if you restrict inter-thread communication to
> message passing... and what makes multi-processing hard is your only
> inter-process communication mechanism is message passing :-)
>
> Sounds like yet another reason to avoid threading and use processes
> instead... effort spent on threading based message passing
> implementations could instead be spent on inter-process messaging.
>
Actually, I think it makes it worth building a decent message-passing paradigm
(like, oh, PEP 342) that can then be scaled using backends with four different
levels of complexity:
- logical threading (generators)
- physical threading (threading.Thread and Queue.Queue)
- multiple processing
- distributed processing
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
