Author pitrou
Recipients brett.cannon, davin, eric.snow, giampaolo.rodola, lukasz.langa, nascheme, osvenskan, pitrou, pmpp, rhettinger, ronaldoussoren, skrah, terry.reedy, yselivanov
Date 2019-02-12.19:46:21
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>

> This is my fault because I altered SharedMemoryManager to no longer support functionality from SyncManager that I thought could be confusing to include.  I am just now discovering this and am not immediately sure if simply removing the SharedMemoryManager-relevant lines from your patch is the right solution but I wanted to mention this thought right away.

If SharedMemoryManager subclasses SyncManager then I *think* it should obey the SyncManager contract.  Regardless of the shared memory facility, the user may also want to "shared" regular proxies between processes.

(to be honest, I don't think the multiprocessing Manager facility is used a lot currently...)
Date User Action Args
2019-02-12 19:46:22pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, brett.cannon, nascheme, rhettinger, terry.reedy, ronaldoussoren, osvenskan, giampaolo.rodola, skrah, pmpp, lukasz.langa, eric.snow, yselivanov, davin
2019-02-12 19:46:22pitrousetmessageid: <>
2019-02-12 19:46:22pitroulinkissue35813 messages
2019-02-12 19:46:21pitroucreate