[socal-piggies] From Will Roscoe's ad-hoc meeting

[Christopher Mahan]

when I do need to do that (and it is rare), I use xmlrpc. It has the
advantage of working across the internet. It is slow and inefficient, but it
works and the client / server tools are in the standard library.

If I need to do a queue thing, I use a third process which just acts as a
queue handler.


Chris Mahan
(818) 671-1709
http://christophermahan.com/
chris.mahan at gmail.com




On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Chuck Esterbrook <
chuck.esterbrook at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Grig Gheorghiu
> <grig.gheorghiu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From Will:
> > The meetup was small but enjoyable. Here are some tid-bits...
> >
> > - Avoid threading when possible, use subprocesses and let the kernel
> > manage the resources. Brian and Chris joked about how they could have
> > told me "oh, threading is easy, go for it"
>
> What are you using to communicate between processes?
>
> I have used threads in Python, using queues to pass data around like so:
> http://www.doughellmann.com/PyMOTW/Queue/index.html
>
> and found it fairly convenient. Of course, there is the GIL, but I
> still experienced some parallelism due to I/O blocking.
>
> Anyway, I'm curious if there's some interesting and easy techniques
> for multiprocess communication.
>
>
> -Chuck
> --
> http://chuckesterbrook.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> socal-piggies mailing list
> socal-piggies at lists.idyll.org
> http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/socal-piggies
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/socal-piggies/attachments/20100115/54c81996/attachment.htm>