distributed queue?

[Bjoern Schliessmann]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Bjoern Schliessmann <usenet-mail-0306.20.chr0n0ss at spamgourmet.com>

>> (Why does everyone think that "concurrency" equals "usage of
>> multiple threads"?)
> 
> Well, it doesn't necessarily, but that's easiest a lot of the
> time.

I don't think so. Personally, I like multiplexing better. I think it
has less complex code.
 
>> Try Twisted for your networking needs.
> 
> I should try to understand Twisted better one of these days, but
> it's much more confusing than threads.  

Sure? I don't think so. I once tried using threads and quickly had
more code for threading than for my functionality, and even had
problems, e. g. with synchronisation or shutting down properly.

IMHO, Twisted is easier, like most multiplexing techniques: Just
write your code (derived from existing client or server classes)
and hook it up to the reactor, and the rest works automagically. 

(You can even hook your protocol to stdin/stdout or install
a "manhole" in the server. You also have twistd which does all the
daemon and logging work for you. Yes, I'm biased ;) )

> Also, the function I want to parallelize does blocking operations
> (database lookups), so in Twisted I'd have to figure out some way
> to do them asynchronously.

Twisted _is_ asynchronous networking. It also has database classes:

http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/current/api/twisted.enterprise.html

Regards,


Björn

-- 
BOFH excuse #292:

We ran out of dial tone and we're and waiting for the phone company
to deliver another bottle.