On 19 Jan, 17:06, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Boddie wrote:
> > Unlike your approach, pprocess employs the fork system call.
>
> Unfortunately, that's not portable. Python's "fork()" is
> "Availability: Macintosh, Unix." I would have preferred
> to use "fork()".
There was a
Paul Boddie wrote:
> Unlike your approach, pprocess employs the fork system call.
Unfortunately, that's not portable. Python's "fork()" is
"Availability: Macintosh, Unix." I would have preferred
to use "fork()".
John Nagle
--
http://mail.python.org/mailma
On 18 Jan, 07:32, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Processing" is useful, but it uses named pipes and sockets,
> not ordinary pipes. Also, it has C code, so all the usual build
> and version problems apply.
The pprocess module uses pickles over sockets, mostly because the
asynchrono
Carl Banks wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2:28 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It's also necessary to call Pickle's "clear_memo" before each "dump"
>> call, since objects might change between successive "dump" calls.
>> "Unpickle" doesn't have a "clear_memo" function. It should, because
>> i
On Jan 17, 2:28 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's possible to use "pickle" for interprocess communication over
> pipes, but it's not straightforward.
>
> First, "pickle" output is self-delimiting.
> Each dump ends with ".&
John Nagle wrote:
> Irmen de Jong wrote:
>> Christian Heimes wrote:
>>> John Nagle wrote:
>>>> It's possible to use "pickle" for interprocess communication over
>>>> pipes, but it's not straightforward.
Another "gotcha".
Irmen de Jong wrote:
> Christian Heimes wrote:
>> John Nagle wrote:
>>> It's possible to use "pickle" for interprocess communication over
>>> pipes, but it's not straightforward.
>>
>> IIRC the processing module uses pickle for IPC. May
Christian Heimes wrote:
> John Nagle wrote:
>> It's possible to use "pickle" for interprocess communication over
>> pipes, but it's not straightforward.
>
> IIRC the processing module uses pickle for IPC. Maybe you can get some
> idea by readin
John Nagle wrote:
> It's possible to use "pickle" for interprocess communication over
> pipes, but it's not straightforward.
IIRC the processing module uses pickle for IPC. Maybe you can get some
idea by reading its code?
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/processing
It's possible to use "pickle" for interprocess communication over
pipes, but it's not straightforward.
First, "pickle" output is self-delimiting.
Each dump ends with ".", and, importantly, "load" doesn't read
any characters after the "
ld this program and call it lets say timer ($ g++ -o
> > timer timer.cpp) and run it with our python script like this
>
> > $python test.py "./timer"
>
> > you would see that every time you run the program your results vary
> > and on top of this the stdo
he timer program gets displayed all
> at once presumably when the timer program has completed execution.
>
> Why this discrepancy between the ping and timer programs? Is my
> test.py script correct? Is there a better or a preferred method for
> doing interprocess communication in Pyt
you would see that every time you run the program your results vary
and on top of this the stdout of the timer program gets displayed all
at once presumably when the timer program has completed execution.
Why this discrepancy between the ping and timer programs? Is my
test.py script correct? Is the
script correct? Is there a better or a preferred method for
doing interprocess communication in Python.
Thanks!
Murali.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Donn Cave wrote:
> Quoth Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | Ben Finney wrote:
> ...
> | > If a programmer decides on behalf of the user that "localhost" should
> | > be treated specially, that programmer is making an error.
> |
> | Inter-process TCP/IP communication between two processes on the
> | > If a programmer decides on behalf of the user that "localhost" should
> | > be treated specially, that programmer is making an error.
> |
> | Inter-process TCP/IP communication between two processes on the same
> | host invariably uses the loopback interface (network 127.0.0.0).
> | According
Quoth Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Ben Finney wrote:
...
| > If a programmer decides on behalf of the user that "localhost" should
| > be treated specially, that programmer is making an error.
|
| Inter-process TCP/IP communication between two processes on the same
| host invariably uses th
"exhuma.twn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Supposing you have two separate processes running on the same box,
> what approach would you suggest to communicate between those two
> processes.
8< -- sockets,webservices,CORBA,shared memory ---
> Supposing both processes
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"exhuma.twn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Supposing you have two separate processes running on the same box,
> what approach would you suggest to communicate between those two
> processes.
Hi exhuma,
That would depend on what data I was exchanging bet
On Feb 16, 5:11 am, "exhuma.twn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Supposing you have two separate processes running on the same box,
> what approach would you suggest to communicate between those two
> processes.
>
Spring Python makes it easy to get processes talking to each other.
You can
exhuma.twn wrote:
> * Sockets
>Advantage: Supported per se in nearly every programming
>language without even the need to install additional packages
>Disadvantage: Lot's of code to write,
Who's Lot? :)
No, seriously. Why would you think that it's much to write? It can,
especially us
> About "Linda": Am I right that it looks very similar to "JavaSpaces"?
> If yes, are there any funcdamental differences between those two?
Yes, they are both linda implementations, but I have no idea what so
ever how they compare. A local java expert maybe?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/list
Ben Finney wrote:
> "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> (And I would expect that making a connection to "localhost" actually
>> does *not* go down up to the network card hardware layer, but I
>> don't know for real if this is the case or not).
>
> It damned well better. That's th
On 16 Feb, 14:53, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[XMPP, XML messaging]
> Didn't know that. Yet I presume it is pretty awful to manually decompose and
> compose the method invocations and parameter sets.
It depends on how well you like working with XML, I suppose.
> I've got no
Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 14:16, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> You can't leave WSDL out of SOAP
>
> Yes you can, since they're two different things. What you probably
> meant was that you can't leave WSDL out of "big architecture", W3C
> standards-intensive Web service
On 16 Feb, 14:16, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You can't leave WSDL out of SOAP
Yes you can, since they're two different things. What you probably
meant was that you can't leave WSDL out of "big architecture", W3C
standards-intensive Web services. Of course, RPC-style SOAP wit
> Maybe this line of mine was a bit too condensed ;) I fully agree with
> you on what you say about CORBA. It's just that for most people IDL
> looks a bit out of place. Especially because it resembles C. But once
> you actually wrote a few projects using CORBA, you actually begin to
> see it's ele
On Feb 16, 1:33 pm, Duncan Grisby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> exhuma.twn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Supposing you have two separate processes running on the same box,
> >what approach would you suggest to communicate between those two
> >processes.
>
> [...]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
exhuma.twn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Supposing you have two separate processes running on the same box,
>what approach would you suggest to communicate between those two
>processes.
[...]
>* Webservices
> Advantage: Relatively easy to use, can work across diffe
"Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (And I would expect that making a connection to "localhost" actually
> does *not* go down up to the network card hardware layer, but I
> don't know for real if this is the case or not).
It damned well better. That's the entire point of the loopbac
"exhuma.twn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Supposing you have two separate processes running on the same box,
> what approach would you suggest to communicate between those two
> processes.
>
> Let me list the ones I know of:
>
> * Sockets
>Advantage: Supported per se in nearly every programmi
> Supposing you have two separate processes running on the same box,
> what approach would you suggest to communicate between those two
> processes.
>
> Let me list the ones I know of:
>
> * Sockets
>Advantage: Supported per se in nearly every programming language
> without even the need to ins
En Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:11:36 -0300, exhuma.twn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Hi all,
>
> Supposing you have two separate processes running on the same box,
> what approach would you suggest to communicate between those two
> processes.
>
> Let me list the ones I know of:
>
> * Sockets
>Advan
Hi all,
Supposing you have two separate processes running on the same box,
what approach would you suggest to communicate between those two
processes.
Let me list the ones I know of:
* Sockets
Advantage: Supported per se in nearly every programming language
without even the need to install ad
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>|> >
>|> >Sockets are often accessed via special files, but are not files.
>|>
>|> They are files. They are not _regular_ files.
>
>Yes, I k
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> >
|> >Sockets are often accessed via special files, but are not files.
|>
|> They are files. They are not _regular_ files.
Sigh. Firstly, look at something like:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>|> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>|> Michael Butscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|>
>|> >Normally any user could connect to an open sock
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Butscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|>
|> this is not really Python-specific but I need it for Python.
|>
|> I'm wanting a method for interprocess communication which is OS-
|> independent (sockets would be the norma
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
|> Michael Butscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>
|> >Normally any user could connect to an open socket on a machine
|> >regardless which user established the socket (the user's pr
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Butscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Normally any user could connect to an open socket on a machine
>regardless which user established the socket (the user's program, to be
>precise).
That's not true. On *nix systems, a socket is a file, and is subject
Michael Butscher wrote:
> I'm wanting a method for interprocess communication which is OS-
> independent (sockets would be the normal way to go), but which works if
> multiple users use the machine at the same time so that one user has no
> access to the communication of program
Hi,
this is not really Python-specific but I need it for Python.
I'm wanting a method for interprocess communication which is OS-
independent (sockets would be the normal way to go), but which works if
multiple users use the machine at the same time so that one user has no
access t
Paul
This is pretty useful for me. Appreciate it! My whole point is not
that I actually want to do this, but that I want to make sure that
Python is powerful enough to handle this kind of thing before I really
invest myself deeply into learning and using it. I do believe that
parallel computing
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"James Aguilar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> So, I have a couple of questions:
>
> * Is there any way to have Python objects (Such as a light or a color)
> put themselves into a byte array and then pull themselves out of the
> same array without any extra work
James Aguilar wrote:
> Suppose that I am writing a ray tracer in Python. Well, perhaps not a
> ray tracer. Suppose that I am writing a ray tracer that has to update
> sixty times a second (Ignore for now that this is impossible and silly.
> Ignore also that one would probably not choose Python to
Oh wise readers of comp.lang.python,
Lend a newbie your ears. I have read several old articles from this
group about memory mapping and interprocess communication and have
Googled the sh** out of the internet, but have not found sufficient to
answer my questions.
Suppose that I am writing a ray
46 matches
Mail list logo
