[Stackless] Stackless and Twisted [was: Stackless and Psyco]
tismer at stackless.com
Wed Mar 3 01:49:20 CET 2004
Christopher Armstrong wrote:
> Christian Tismer wrote:
>> Is it possible to spell out what's wrong/missing in Stackless?
>> I'd really like to support Twisted; we need to share some information.
>> (I'm the specialist here, you are the specialist there...)
> No no no, nothing wrong with stackless in the context of Twisted, at
> least as far as this problem is concerned. It's just a fundamental issue
> with context-switching when current, un-stacklessy code isn't expecting
> it. It's not a major issue, like it is with regular pre-emptive
> threading, but it can still be a concern in cases like I pointed out.
But Stackless does no automatic scheduling at the moment.
You mean the problem is that a function which knows what
it calls usually can expect that exactly that and nothing else
And if some code decides to schedule(), this assumption is broke?
So Twisted is doing something like "locking by call", in the sense
that it is implicitly locked, since *now just this* function
is able to run?
This would of course mean to need more explicit locking of
resources, if I understand this at all.
cheers -- chris
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer at stackless.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
More information about the Stackless