Author neologix
Recipients Giovanni.Bajo, avian, bobbyi, gregory.p.smith, neologix, nirai, pitrou, sdaoden, vstinner
Date 2011-07-05.16:33:33
SpamBayes Score 2.13754e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <CAH_1eM34ZKz9QvYz2qXESVREHDpoUOk_3m9UmJcPwzi3NY_rAg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1309871083.71.0.146155019353.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
>> We can't do that, it would break existing code.
>
> I would argue that such code is already broken.
>

- that's not necessarily true, if your code is carefully designed
- we can't forbid fork() in a multi-threaded application while it's
allowed by POSIX
- backward compatibility is *really* important

>> What do you mean by helper threads?
>
> multiprocessing uses threads behind the scenes to handle queue traffic and such for individual forked processes. It's something I also wasn't aware of until Antoine pointed it out. It also has its own implementation of atfork hooks in an attempt to handle the locking issue.
>

I'm curious as to how you'll manage to implement
multiprocessing.queues without threads.
Please open a dedicated issue for this.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-07-05 16:33:34neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, vstinner, nirai, bobbyi, Giovanni.Bajo, sdaoden, avian
2011-07-05 16:33:33neologixlinkissue6721 messages
2011-07-05 16:33:33neologixcreate