On 6/28/06, Trent Mick <trentm at activestate.com> wrote: > > Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > The idea is that there be a separate Python interpreter per web > > > > browser page instance. > > > > > I think there may be scaling issues there. JavaScript isn't doing > that > > > is it, do you know? As well, that doesn't seem like it would > translate > > > well to sharing execution between separate chrome windows in a > > > non-browser XUL/Mozilla-based app. > > > > And if you don't think it is going to scale, how do you think it should > > be done? > > That was an ignorant response (I haven't read what you've suggested and > really though about it). Sorry for the unsubstantiated babbling. > > To Bob's question on how much interpreter state *is* there: I don't > know. Have you done any measuring of that, Brett? Not yet; as of right now I just want a coherent security model since this whole idea is dead in the water without it. But I do know that interpreters are basically execution stack, a new sys module, and a new sys.modules. It isn't horrendously heavy. And C extension modules are shared between them. -Brett -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060628/45584f62/attachment.html
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4