[Python-Dev] Making python C-API thread safe (try 2)

[Harri Pesonen]

Jeff Epler wrote:

>On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:22:41PM +0300, Harri Pesonen wrote:
>  
>
>>It is more efficient to have one process and several threads, than 
>>several processes each having one thread.
>>    
>>
>
>If it's easier to code "several processes each having one thread", then
>I'll sure do it.  I've accepted a 2x-100x speed hit by using Python, so
>if it's a 25% difference in efficiency, I won't sign up to wait for code
>that doesn't exist yet.
>  
>
But wouldn't it be better if Python had real multitasking? Comments like 
the above mean that you accept Python as it is, fine. But usually people 
want to make things better when they see that something can be improved. 
If my roof is leaking, I have two choices: fix it or accept it. If I am 
able to fix it, then I'll probably do it.

The old code base really is the problem here. If Python threads really 
run at the same time in the future, how many current applications stop 
working because they depend on the fact that only one thread runs at any 
given time, and do not acquire and release locks as needed? On the other 
hand, my suggestion probably means that we couldn't have a threading 
module compatible with thread or threading anyhow (we could have 
freethreading, with specific functions for inter-thread communication).

Harri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20030917/135d3b03/attachment.html>