[issue35813] shared memory construct to avoid need for serialization between processes

[Antoine Pitrou]

Antoine Pitrou <pitrou at free.fr> added the comment:

Davin:

> 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...)

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35813>
_______________________________________