Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Lloyd wrote:
A lot of time was spent talking about these (legitimate) concerns -
unfortunately it will probably take a little time to distill all
of that communication to the community. But let me take a shot ;)
There are several
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:54:11 -0500, Andrew Langmead
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't tried the
latest version of Parrot, but I'd think that Zope would be the last
thing that will run successfully.
I don't know that Parrot tries to emulate Python's C API either, and
Zope definately contains
On Mar 18, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Alan Milligan wrote:
I know a year or so ago, someone received a pie in the face at a
conference because Parrot still wasn't as fast as the native Python
interpreter, but maybe this too has changed with this release.
I wouldn't say that Dan got his pie because it
On Mar 21, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Alan Milligan wrote:
I'm not sure that it's necessarily this difficult. Perhaps it's simply
a matter of implementing Python's import/dlopen semantics and running
this C natively on the VM.
Take a look at something like
Zope-{version}/lib/Components/ExtensionClass/src
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 12:23, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't
want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility. I
know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code.
Alan Milligan wrote:
An obvious benefit is the genuine concurrency it offers over GIL on SMP
hardware. Anyone running an enterprise Zope or Plone installation would
desire to take advantage of this.
ZEO, multiple clients and processor affinity settings already offer
this, and with no extra
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Ah, okay, I thought that's what you meant, but I hoped it wasn't.
The fact that you expect this to work is a bug in Zope's security
machinery, IMHO, but sadly only IMHO it appears.
Huh? That's fundamental to Zope's security model.
As I said, I appear to be the only person
Mark Hammond wrote:
A quick search for windows doesn't show too many. As far as I can tell,
all but 2 (1689 and 1728) are fixed with my patches. I also note that my
patches have been sitting there for a number of months now - so I humbly
suggest the problem is not simply a lack of appropriate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
| ZEO, multiple clients and processor affinity settings already offer
| this, and with no extra development needed...
|
What userland tools are you using to implement processor affinity??
Alan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
