On Friday 30 September 2005 22:13, Michael Sparks (home address) wrote:
> I wrote a white paper based on my Python UK talk, which is here:
> * http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp11.shtml
Oops that URL isn't right. It should be:
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp113.shtml
Sorry! (Thank
[ I don't post often, but hopefully the following is of interest in this
discussion ]
Bruce Eckel wrote:
> Yes, defining an class as "active" would:
> 1) Install a worker thread and concurrent queue in each object of that
> class.
> 2) Automatically turn method calls into tasks and enqueue them
Bruce Eckel wrote:
> Since the enqueuing process serializes all requests to active objects,
> and since each message-task runs to completion before the next one
> starts, the problem of threads interfering with each other is
> eliminated. Also, the enqueuing process will always happen, so even if
>
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>
>>PEP 342's yield expressions can probably be used to help address that
>>problem,
>>though:
>>
>> class SomeAO(ActiveObject):
>> def processSomeMessage(self):
>> msg = yield
>> # Do something with the message
>> next_msg = yie
Oops. I forgot to add that to the list. Yes, in the working example
of Active Objects that I've written in Java J2SE5, when you send a
message to an active object, you get back a Future, which
I suspect would be the same as your Deferred.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005, 7:41:27 PM, Christopher Armstr
On 9/28/05, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> > PEP 342's yield expressions can probably be used to help address that
> > problem,
> > though:
> >
> >class SomeAO(ActiveObject):
> > def processSomeMessage(self):
> >msg = yield
> ># Do somethin
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> PEP 342's yield expressions can probably be used to help address that
> problem,
> though:
>
>class SomeAO(ActiveObject):
> def processSomeMessage(self):
>msg = yield
># Do something with the message
>next_msg = yield makeSomeBlockingCall(s
Bruce Eckel wrote:
> Since the enqueuing process serializes all requests to active objects,
> and since each message-task runs to completion before the next one
> starts, the problem of threads interfering with each other is
> eliminated. Also, the enqueuing process will always happen, so even if
>
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Well, you could pickle and unpickle the objects you send from one function
> to another, and for cross-process communication, you'll need to do
> something like that anyway, or else use that shared-memory objects
> thing. PySHM? I don't remember its name, but it's an ex
At 11:18 AM 9/27/2005 -0600, Bruce Eckel wrote:
>Yes, defining an class as "active" would:
>1) Install a worker thread and concurrent queue in each object of that
>class.
>2) Automatically turn method calls into tasks and enqueue them
>3) Prevent any other interaction other than enqueued messages
According to this list's welcome message, I should introduce myself.
I'm Bruce Eckel, I write, consult and give seminars about computer
programming, I use Python whenever I can get away with it, and I've
spoken at Pycon a number of times. There are further URLs in my
signature at the bottom.
I'm j
11 matches
Mail list logo
