On 12/23/06, Evgeniy Khramtsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Klaas пишет: > > > I'm not sure how having python execute code at an arbitrary time would > > _reduce_ race conditions and/or deadlocks. And if you want to make it > > safe by executing code that shares no variables or resources, then it > > is no less safe to use threads, due to the GIL. > > > Ok. And what about a huge thread overhead? Just try to start 10-50k > threading timers :) > > > If you can write you application in an event-driven way, Twisted might > > be able to do what you are looking for. > > I don't like an idea of Twisted: you want the banana, but get the whole > gorilla as well :)
Well you simply can't do what you propose without writing code in the style of Twisted or with interpreter modifications or evil stack slicing such as with stackless or greenlet. If you aren't willing to choose any of those then you'll have to live without that functionality or use another language (though I can't think of any usable ones that actually safely do what you're asking). It should be relatively efficient to do what you want with a thread pool (one thread that manages all of the timers, and worker threads to execute the timer callbacks). FWIW, Erlang doesn't have that functionality. You can wait on messages with a timeout, but there are no interrupts. You do have cheap and isolated processes instead of expensive shared state threads, though. Writing Erlang/OTP code is actually a lot closer to writing Twisted style code than it is to other styles of concurrency (that you'd find in Python). It's just that Erlang/OTP has better support for concurrency oriented programming than Python does (across the board; syntax, interpreter, convention and libraries). -bob _______________________________________________ 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
