On Nov 6, 8:25 am, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 5, 8:44 pm, "Andy O'Meara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In a few earlier posts, I went into details what's meant there: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/... > > All this says is: > > 1. The cost of serialization and deserialization is to large. > 2. Complex data structures cannot be placed in shared memory. > > The first claim is unsubstantiated. It depends on how much and what > you serialize.
Right, but I'm telling you that it *is* substantial... Unfortunately, you can't serialize thousands of opaque OS objects (which undoubtably contain sub allocations and pointers) in a frame-based, performance centric-app. Please consider that others (such as myself) are not trying to be difficult here--turns out that we're actually professionals. Again, I'm not the type to compare credentials, but it would be nice if you considered that you aren't the final authority on real-time professional software development. > > The second claim is plain wrong. You can put anything you want in > shared memory. The mapping address of the shared memory segment may > vary, but it can be dealt with (basically use integers instead of > pointers, and use the base address as offset.) I explained this in other posts: OS objects are opaque and their serialization has to be done via their APIs, which is never marketed as being fast *OR* cheap. I've gone into this many times and in many posts. > Saying that "it can't be done" is silly before you have tried. Your attitude and unwillingless to look at the use cases listed myself and others in this thread shows that this discussion may not be a good use of your time. In any case, you haven't even acknowledged that a package can't "wag the dog" when it comes to app development--and that's the bottom line and root liability. Andy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list