I didn't even realize posting at the top was considered a no-no on mailing list etiquette... But indeed, I am using Outlook. I wonder if there's an option to change that somewhere...
Thanks for your feedback Michael. This thread has diverged a little bit so let me know if you have any thoughts on the rest of it. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Foord Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:06 AM To: Discussion of IronPython Subject: Re: [IronPython] Multiple engine instances in IP 2.0 and beyond (was IronPython 2.0 Alpha 1 Released) My guess is that you have to use outlook. It does seem to encourage top-posting. ;-) Dino Viehland wrote: > The scripts are running on multiple threads? Usually - although sometimes code is executed on the GUI thread, but in this case we always know where to send the output. > The easy way to do this in v2.0 is to set console output (we no longer > maintain our own output streams) to be a stream which looks at a thread > static variable which is the real stream to output to. Would that solve the > entire isolation problem for you? > Our current code is nice and elegant, whilst yours sounds hacky. :-p Actually its just a solution we didn't think of, although it isn't quite as nice as running them in separate engines which we do now, and does give us *some* measure of isolation. (It is slightly less likely that a badly written user script will now kill the whole application, although obviously still very easy.) > The only problem w/ this is if user code sets sys.stdout they'll hijack all > the other scripts. > Which is a problem - but we can always say "don't do that then"... I think we still like our current use of multiple engines, and would prefer to see that supported in IronPython 2.0, even with a shared SystemState. At least you have given us an alternative without *having* to use AppDomains if this isn't possible. Thanks Michael Foord http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ironpython/index.shtml > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Foord > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:58 AM > To: Discussion of IronPython > Subject: Re: [IronPython] Multiple engine instances in IP 2.0 and beyond (was > IronPython 2.0 Alpha 1 Released) > > Michael Foord wrote: > >> Dino Viehland wrote: >> >> >>> I'm not actually the one working on the engine APIs so that's the reason >>> I've tended to be vague. I'll talk to the people doing it and let you know >>> what I hear. >>> >>> But the more info you can give us the better decision we'll be able to >>> make. For example what do you actually need to be isolated? Do you need >>> multiple system states so they get their own modules, console, etc... do >>> you need everything in sys isolated? Do you need to guarantee the >>> isolation even if .NET code is called (e.g. they could smuggled data via a >>> static field). If they do need some rather high level of isolation are app >>> domains good enough? Do you need to marshal a lot of data in/out? Or is >>> the effort to spin up and use app domains correctly? >>> >>> >>> >> At Resolver we are currently using multiple IronPython engines. Moving >> to AppDomains is a long term goal for us, but is actually quite a lot of >> work (we would have *lots* of cross-domain calls and so to avoid that we >> have to find an efficient way of pumping lots of data in and then out of >> the app domain). >> >> Switching to app domains is not a high priority task for us, and in the >> meantime we *can't* upgrade to IronPython 2 if it doesn't support >> multiple engines. >> >> Isolation of engines is only a minor benefit (it is a positive side >> effect - but not the reason we started using them) for us at the moment, >> and an isolated system state (although nice) is not vital. >> >> >> > > In fact, the reason we started using multiple engines was to divert the > standard output of simultaneously running user scripts to different > output windows... > > Michael > > > >> All the best, >> >> Michael Foord >> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ironpython/index.shtml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> users@lists.ironpython.com >> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@lists.ironpython.com > http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@lists.ironpython.com > http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com > > _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
