On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Pascal Chambon <chambon.pas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So, if a patch was proposed for the multiprocessing, allowing an unified > "spawnl", thread-safe, semantic, do you think something could prevent its > integration ? > > We may ignore the subprocess module, since fork+exec shouldn't be bothered > by the (potentially disastrous) state of child process data. > But it bothers me to think multithreading and multiprocessing are currently > opposed whereas theoretically nothing justifies it... > > Regards, > Pascal
I don't see the need for the change from fork as of yet (for multiprocessing) and I am leery to change the internal implementation and semantics right now, or anytime soon. I'd be interested in seeing the patch, but if the concern is that global threading objects could be left in the state that they're in at the time of the fork(), I think people know that or we can easily document this fact. jesse _______________________________________________ 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
