Peter Cai wrote: > If you Google "sqlalchemy twisted", you can see my post is on the top: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy/browse_thread/thread/c802749c9d0dd6 > > I've been busy for a long time so I didn't considered this question > anymore. But occasionally, I got some new ideas today. > > I was suggested to sandbox sqlalchemy into process contains a single thread. > At that time, I thought it was just the same as using deferToThread > and makes no scenes to have the overhead of IPC. > > But now I see the benefits. > > A single thread process makes it possible to use a sqlalchemy session > as a cache. That would greatly reduce the chances to lookup database. > This could not be done with deferToThread because it uses thread pool. > So there shall be more than one session and the state of cached > objects will conflict. > > But there are still one problem : how to transfer a sqlalchemy object > between 2 process? Some kind of serialization and de-serialization is > needed. Without test, it's too early to tell if it works. >
Is there a reason why multiprocessing could not be used? http://docs.python.org/library/multiprocessing.html#exchanging-objects-between-processes -- Eero Nevalainen _______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
