2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters

[Andy O'Meara]

On Oct 26, 10:11 pm, "James Mills" <prolo... at shortcircuit.net.au>
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Andy O'Meara <and... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think we miscommunicated there--I'm actually agreeing with you.  I
> > was trying to make the same point you were: that intricate and/or
> > large structures are meant to be passed around by a top-level pointer,
> > not using and serialization/messaging.  This is what I've been trying
> > to explain to others here; that IPC and shared memory unfortunately
> > aren't viable options, leaving app threads (rather than child
> > processes) as the solution.
>
> Andy,
>
> Why don't you just use a temporary file
> system (ram disk) to store the data that
> your app is manipulating. All you need to
> pass around then is a file descriptor.
>
> --JamesMills

Unfortunately, it's the penalty of serialization and unserialization.
When you're talking about stuff like memory-resident images and video
(complete with their intricate and complex codecs), then the only
option is to be passing around a couple pointers rather then take the
hit of serialization (which is huge for video, for example).  I've
gone into more detail in some other posts but I could have missed
something.


Andy