On 04:58 pm, jaeda...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse Noller <jnoller <at> gmail.com> writes:
We already have an implementation that spawns a
subprocess and then pushes the required state to the child. The
fundamental need for things to be pickleable *all the time* kinda
makes it annoying to work with.
This requirement puts a fairly large additional strain on working with
unwieldy, wrapped C++ libraries in a multiprocessing environment.
I'm not very knowledgeable on the internals of the system, but would
it be possible to have some kind of fallback system whereby if an
object
fails to pickle we instead send information about how to import it?
This
has all kinds of limitations - it only works for importable things
(i.e. not
instances), it can potentially lose information dynamically added to
the
object, etc., but I thought I would throw the idea out there so someone
knowledgeable can decide if it has any merit.
It's already possible to define pickling for arbitrary objects. You
should be able to do this for the kinds of importable objects you're
talking about, and perhaps even for some of the actual instances (though
that depends on how introspectable they are from Python, and whether the
results of this introspection can be used to re-instantiate the object
somewhere else).
Take a look at the copy_reg module.
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
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
