On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 04:44:32 -0400 Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > On 3/28/2014 5:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:58:25 -0400 > > Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > > >> However, the code below creates a subprocess for one command and one > >> response, which can apparently be done now with subprocess.communicate. > >> What I and others need is a continuing (non-blocking) conversion with 1 > >> and only 1 subprocess (see my response to Josiah), and that is much more > >> difficult. So this code does not do what he claims his will do. > > > > Why don't you use multiprocessing or concurrent.futures? They have > > everything you need for continuous conversation between processes. > > I have not used either and no one suggested either before, while Amaury > Forgeot d'Arc and Guido suggested subprocess pipes. I added those two > ideas to the issue.
Looking at idlelib/rpc.py, it looks largely like an uncommented (untested?) reimplementation of multiprocessing pipes, with weird architecture choices (RPCServer is actually a client?). multiprocessing should have everything you need: you can run child processes, communicate with them using Queues, Locks, Conditions, or you can even automate asynchronous execution with a process Pool. Those are cross-platform and use the most appropriate platform-specific primitives (for examples named pipes under Windows). They are also quite well-tested, and duly maintained by Richard :-) Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
