thanks for the clarification below and also the pointers to the posix behaviour of fork. The Warning about Zope/ZEO clients in the subject line certainly caused some alarm bells to go off.
I am assuming now that dieters description below of using forks does not gel with the ZOPE/ZEO process model i.e there are no forks being called within the code to cause the asyncore thread to be cloned ( even if one were using a non posix compliant thread lib like native solaris it would still be a non issue ).
At least thats how I see it so far !
please let me know if anybody thinks otherwise :)
so can we safely assume that zeo does not mix the asyncore implementation with forks or threads and hence does not suffer from the "child concurrently operating on sockets along with parent" syndrome that dieter is experiencing ? appreciate any clarifications.
It's normal for a ZEO application to run asyncore in its own thread. I don't really understand what Dieter is seeing, though:
When a process forks the complete state, including file descriptors, threads and memory state is copied and the new process executes in this copied state. We now have 2 "asyncore" threads waiting for the same events.
A problem is that it's *not* the case that a POSIX fork() clones all threads. Only the thread calling fork() exists in the child process. There's a brief but clear discussion of that here:
POSIX doesn't even have a way to *ask* that all threads be duplicated, for reasons explained there.
Last I heard, Dieter was running LinuxThreads, which fail to meet the POSIX thread spec in several respects. But, AFAICT, fork() under LinuxThreads is the same as POSIX in this particular respect (since threads are distinct processes under LinuxThreads, it would be bizarre if a fork() cloned multiple processes!). I believe native Solaris threads act as Dieter describes, though (fork() clones all native Solaris threads).
Dieter, can you clarify which OS(es) and thread package(s) you're using here? Do the things you're doing that call fork() (directly or indirectly) actually run from the thread running asyncore.loop()? That's the only way a POSIX fork() should end up with a clone of the thread running the asyncore loop. But then the subsequent exec (if you're doing system() or popen()) should wipe out the cloned asyncore code before the child process returns to asyncore.
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce