Author neologix
Recipients Arfrever, DLitz, aliles, amaury.forgeotdarc, asvetlov, christian.heimes, georg.brandl, grahamd, gregory.p.smith, jcea, lemburg, neologix, pitrou, sbt, twouters, vstinner
Date 2013-10-21.13:48:18
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAH_1eM2NtrE3Ybb9AKr2Oy-kQ==_EgfSP0+KrGacpXfejQRS1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1382360532.86.0.601550711219.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
I have a couple random remarks:
- now that FDs are non-inheritable by default, fork locks around
subprocess and multiprocessing shouldn't be necessary anymore? What
other use cases does the fork-lock have?
- the current implementation keeps hard-references to the functions
passed: so if one isn't careful, you can end up easily with a lot of
objects kept alive just because of those references, which can be a
problem
- also, since we're not sure about the API, and it's mostly intended
to be used for the interpreter/stdlib, how about making it private for
now, or at least "provisional' (I think that's the term)?
- I'm also +1 on exceptions in prepare hook preventing fork, but we'll
need to play a bit with actual fork hooks to see if that's a
reasonable approach
History
Date User Action Args
2013-10-21 13:48:19neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, lemburg, twouters, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, jcea, amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, grahamd, Arfrever, asvetlov, sbt, aliles, DLitz
2013-10-21 13:48:19neologixlinkissue16500 messages
2013-10-21 13:48:18neologixcreate