Multiple threads

[Jack Keegan]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Dave Angel <d at davea.name> wrote:

> On 11/16/2011 01:22 PM, Dave Angel wrote:
>
>> (You're top-posting.  Put your remarks AFTER what you're quoting)
>>
>> On 11/16/2011 12:52 PM, Jack Keegan wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I thought that processes would do the same job as threads. So would
>>> the
>>> general rule be some thing like so:
>>>
>>> If I want another piece of work to run (theoretically) along side my main
>>> script, and I want to share data between them, I should use a thread and
>>> share data with the thread-safe queue.
>>> If the work I want done can function and complete on its own, go for a
>>> process.
>>>
>>> Would that be about right?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, with all the caveats I mentioned before.  With some language
>> implementations, and with some operating systems, and on some CPU-systems,
>> the guidelines could be different.  They all trade off in ways too complex
>> to describe here.
>>
>> For example, if a thread is mostly doing I/O, it may be just as efficient
>> as a separate process, even if sharing data isn't an issue.
>>
>> And in some languages, sharing data between processes isn't all that
>> tough, either.
>>
>>
>>  Well, you sent me a mail without including the list (just use
> Reply-All), and I tried to add the list in.  Unfortunately, I picked the
> wrong one, so i sent this to Tutor by mistake.  I'll try to fix that now,
> sorry.


Apologies, I usually reply-all and don't usually top-post. Was just rushing
out the door when I responded last time.

Cheers,

Jack

-- 
The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers
of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in
triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.
- Carl Sagan [Pale Blue Dot]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20111117/624e3bae/attachment-0001.html>