On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:24 AM Sean Harrington <seanhar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:39 PM Sean Harrington <seanhar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > My simple argument is that the developer should not be constrained to make >> > the objects passed globally available in the process, as this MAY break >> > encapsulation for large projects. >> >> I could imagine someone switching from Pool to ThreadPool and getting >> into trouble, but in my mind using threads is caveat emptor. Are you >> worried about breaking encapsulation in a different scenario? > > >> Without a specific example on-hand, you could imagine a tree of function > >> calls that occur in the worker process (even newly created objects), that > >> should not necessarily have access to objects passed from parent -> > >> worker. In every case given the current implementation, they will.
Echoing Antoine: If you want some functions to not have access to a module's globals, you can put those functions in a different module. Note that multiprocessing already encapsulates each subprocesses' globals in essentially a separate namespace. Without a specific example, this discussion is going to go around in circles. You have a clear aversion to globals. Antoine and I do not. No one else seems to have found this conversation interesting enough to participate, yet. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
