Message335360
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | brett.cannon, davin, eric.snow, giampaolo.rodola, lukasz.langa, nascheme, osvenskan, pitrou, pmpp, rhettinger, ronaldoussoren, skrah, terry.reedy, yselivanov |
| Date | 2019-02-12.19:46:21 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1550000782.08.0.282062082797.issue35813@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Davin: > This is my fault because I altered SharedMemoryManager to no longer support functionality from SyncManager that I thought could be confusing to include. I am just now discovering this and am not immediately sure if simply removing the SharedMemoryManager-relevant lines from your patch is the right solution but I wanted to mention this thought right away. If SharedMemoryManager subclasses SyncManager then I *think* it should obey the SyncManager contract. Regardless of the shared memory facility, the user may also want to "shared" regular proxies between processes. (to be honest, I don't think the multiprocessing Manager facility is used a lot currently...) |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2019-02-12 19:46:22 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, brett.cannon, nascheme, rhettinger, terry.reedy, ronaldoussoren, osvenskan, giampaolo.rodola, skrah, pmpp, lukasz.langa, eric.snow, yselivanov, davin |
| 2019-02-12 19:46:22 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1550000782.08.0.282062082797.issue35813@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2019-02-12 19:46:22 | pitrou | link | issue35813 messages |
| 2019-02-12 19:46:21 | pitrou | create | |