Is there an obvious way to do this in python?

H J van Rooyen mail at microcorp.co.za
Sat Aug 5 05:20:59 EDT 2006


"Dennis Lee Bieber" <wlfraed at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

8<------------------------------

| There may be something in-between. IFF this is to be used strictly
| on an internal LAN with uniform architecture (all Linux or all WinXP)
| for the client machines. You'd have to set up something so a reboot

no such luck - reality will probably be Linux for server, and a horrible mix of
windoze machines on the client side - from 95 through 98 and 2000 to XP... will
have to get SAMBA running at least - and it could be tricky with some of the
older hardware/software around - but that is another fight, that I would have to
solve anyway.

| remounts correctly but... (In WinXP terms) Create a read-only "share" on
| a file server. The file server will contain the Python modules that make
| up the client. The client start-up still uses a login to obtain a
| privilege map, which controls the menu/form access. However, rather than
| having to push the modules to each client, you delay the module import
| until the form it controls is invoked. The start-up module would have to

This is more the kind of thing I had in mind - but I was not thinking in terms
of having the redirecting done by the OS and network file sharing - stupid I
suppose...

| add the "share" to the pythonpath (hence you want a uniform system
| configuration so each machine mounts the share on the same name).
|

I will have to think of a solution to this *shudders*  - config files, maybe...


| It's still an all-in-one client, but you don't have to install
| anything on the user machines (except the "share" and a shortcut to the
| start-up module).
|
| For Linux, this would be an NFS mount.

*nods* Thanks Dennis  - I am busy drinking out of the Pyro fire hose at the
moment - and the stuff I have seen so far looks bloody awesome - you do some
little bit of magic setup - and hey - you have a name server that you can query
and then you can remotely execute a method on a remote object just as if its
here in your machine, and you get the returns just like you would if the object
were local to the machine your Python script is running in...

And they have made a sort of mirror of the name server thingy so that you can
fall back to a non broken one and resync when things go wrong go wrong go
wrong...

As a low level johnny this sort of functionality impresses the hell out of me -
when I think of the time I have spent struggling to get a few small tightly
coupled machines to work together in a primitive way - my mind boggles at this -
you could create awesome capability by having multiple copies of objects hanging
around in different machines - and simply keep track of how much they are loaded
by monitoring their input queues - and make more instances as you need them as
loading gets higher...  The only bottleneck is the LAN's capacity to move the
data around - but in most WAN type applications, that is not where the
bottleneck is...
and its not inconceivable to add an additional "Python Execution Gigabit
Backbone" to a cluster of machines, dedicated to this remote calling task...

Its almost too good for my simple little local job, but I am still reading...

I have to remember to thank Bruno for the pointer...

- Hendrik




More information about the Python-list mailing list