Comments appreciated on Erlang inspired Process class.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Brian L. Troutwine

    #1

    Comments appreciated on Erlang inspired Process class.

    Lately I've been tinkering around with Erlang and have begun to sorely want
    some of its features in Python, mostly the ease at which new processes can be
    forked off for computation. To that end I've coded up a class I call,
    boringly enough, Process. It takes a function, its args and keywords and runs
    the function in another process using os.fork. Processes can be treated as
    callables to retrieve the return value of the passed in function.

    The code is pasted here: http://deadbeefbabe.org/paste/4972. A simple
    exposition of Process is included at the end of the code in some __main__
    magic. (Note: The code will not run on any system which lacks os.fork and
    spawns 100 child processes while running.)

    I'd very much appreciate people to look the code over and give me their
    reactions to it, or suggests for improvement. As it stands, I see three major
    defects with the current implementation:

    1) Process hangs forever if its child errors out.

    2) Process isn't portable because of its use of os.fork().

    3) Process should use AF_UNIX when available instead of TCP.

    ---
    blt
  • Paul Boddie

    #2
    Re: Comments appreciated on Erlang inspired Process class.

    On 1 Jun, 19:34, "Brian L. Troutwine" <goofyheadedp.. .@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    Lately I've been tinkering around with Erlang and have begun to sorely want
    some of its features in Python, mostly the ease at which new processes can be
    forked off for computation. To that end I've coded up a class I call,
    boringly enough, Process. It takes a function, its args and keywords and runs
    the function in another process using os.fork. Processes can be treated as
    callables to retrieve the return value of the passed in function.
    This sounds familiar...



    Do you have any opinions about those projects listed on the above page
    that are similar to your own? My contribution (pprocess), along with
    others (processing, pp...), can offer similar facilities, but the
    styles of interfacing with spawned processes may be somewhat
    different.

    Paul

    Comment

    • Brian L. Troutwine

      #3
      Re: Comments appreciated on Erlang inspired Process class.



      Ah, I'd forgotten about that page of the wiki; I hadn't seen it for a few
      months.
      Do you have any opinions about those projects listed on the above page
      that are similar to your own? My contribution (pprocess), along with
      others (processing, pp...), can offer similar facilities, but the
      styles of interfacing with spawned processes may be somewhat
      different.
      The interface was my most important design goal, in that I wanted it to be a
      dead simple "Drop in some code and forget about it for a while. Retrieve the
      results later as if you'd called the function yourself." sort of thing.
      Secondly I wanted share nothing parallelism in order to avoid the nastier
      bits of implementing concurrent code.

      delegate doesn't fit the bill because it returns its results in a dictionary.
      pp is rather more feature-full and rather less simple as a result. processing
      is a clone of threading, more or less, and voids itself for not being simple
      and having shared objects between processes (a nifty trick to be sure). POSH
      uses a shared memory approach and hasn't been updated, it would seem, since
      2003. pprocess isn't as simple as I wanted, though rather more simple than
      all the others. remoteD uses shared memory.

      I suppose, then, my opinion is that they're not brain-dead simple enough to
      fulfill my desired style of process creation. (I'm smitten with Erlang.)

      On Friday 01 June 2007 10:48:10 Paul Boddie wrote:
      On 1 Jun, 19:34, "Brian L. Troutwine" <goofyheadedp.. .@gmail.com>
      >
      wrote:
      Lately I've been tinkering around with Erlang and have begun to sorely
      want some of its features in Python, mostly the ease at which new
      processes can be forked off for computation. To that end I've coded up a
      class I call, boringly enough, Process. It takes a function, its args and
      keywords and runs the function in another process using os.fork.
      Processes can be treated as callables to retrieve the return value of the
      passed in function.
      >
      This sounds familiar...
      >

      >
      Do you have any opinions about those projects listed on the above page
      that are similar to your own? My contribution (pprocess), along with
      others (processing, pp...), can offer similar facilities, but the
      styles of interfacing with spawned processes may be somewhat
      different.
      >
      Paul

      Comment

      • MC

        #4
        Re: Comments appreciated on Erlang inspired Process class.

        Hi!

        Look Candygram : http://candygram.sourceforge.net/







        --
        @-salutations

        Michel Claveau


        Comment

        • George Sakkis

          #5
          Re: Comments appreciated on Erlang inspired Process class.

          On Jun 1, 2:20 pm, "Brian L. Troutwine" <goofyheadedp.. .@gmail.com>
          wrote:
          >
          Ah, I'd forgotten about that page of the wiki; I hadn't seen it for a few
          months.
          >
          Do you have any opinions about those projects listed on the above page
          that are similar to your own? My contribution (pprocess), along with
          others (processing, pp...), can offer similar facilities, but the
          styles of interfacing with spawned processes may be somewhat
          different.
          >
          The interface was my most important design goal, in that I wanted it to be a
          dead simple "Drop in some code and forget about it for a while. Retrieve the
          results later as if you'd called the function yourself." sort of thing.
          Secondly I wanted share nothing parallelism in order to avoid the nastier
          bits of implementing concurrent code.
          Funny, I've been working on a similar library these days with the same
          primary goal, a minimal intuitive API. The closest to what I had in
          mind that I found in the parallel processing wiki was the
          Scientific.Dist ributedComputin g package (actually there are no
          dependencies with the rest Scientific.* packages, the library
          comprises two modules and one script all in all). It's worth checking
          out and there's at least one idea I plan to copy (the "watchdog"
          thread monitoring if a process has died), but overall I found the API
          a bit clunky for my taste.

          So I rolled yet another parallel processing package and I'm glad to
          have a first working version ready at this point, exposing a single
          lightweight API and three distinct platform-independent
          implementations : one using multiple threads, one using multiple
          processes in one or more hosts (through PYRO) and one singlethreaded
          (for the sake of completeness, probably not very useful). I'll write
          up some docs and I'll announce it, hopefully within the week.

          George

          Comment

          • Nick Craig-Wood

            #6
            Re: Comments appreciated on Erlang inspired Process class.

            Brian L. Troutwine <goofyheadedpun k@gmail.comwrot e:
            Lately I've been tinkering around with Erlang and have begun to sorely want
            some of its features in Python, mostly the ease at which new processes can be
            forked off for computation. To that end I've coded up a class I call,
            boringly enough, Process. It takes a function, its args and keywords and runs
            the function in another process using os.fork. Processes can be treated as
            callables to retrieve the return value of the passed in function.
            >
            The code is pasted here: http://deadbeefbabe.org/paste/4972. A simple
            exposition of Process is included at the end of the code in some __main__
            magic. (Note: The code will not run on any system which lacks os.fork and
            spawns 100 child processes while running.)
            >
            I'd very much appreciate people to look the code over and give me their
            reactions to it, or suggests for improvement. As it stands, I see three major
            defects with the current implementation:
            >
            1) Process hangs forever if its child errors out.
            >
            2) Process isn't portable because of its use of os.fork().
            >
            3) Process should use AF_UNIX when available instead of TCP.
            You could use os.pipe() or socket.socketpa ir(). It would simplify the
            code a lot too!

            The biggest problem I see is that there is no non-blocking way of
            seeing whether the Process() has finished or not, and no way to wait
            on more than one Process() at once.

            If there is an exception then you should return it to the parent (see
            the subprocess module for an example).

            --
            Nick Craig-Wood <nick@craig-wood.com-- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick

            Comment

            Working...