On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:24 AM Sean Harrington <seanharr11 at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:39 PM Sean Harrington <seanharr11 at gmail.com> wrote: >> > My simple argument is that the developer should not be constrained to make the objects passed globally available in the process, as this MAY break encapsulation for large projects. >> >> I could imagine someone switching from Pool to ThreadPool and getting >> into trouble, but in my mind using threads is caveat emptor. Are you >> worried about breaking encapsulation in a different scenario? > > >> Without a specific example on-hand, you could imagine a tree of function calls that occur in the worker process (even newly created objects), that should not necessarily have access to objects passed from parent -> worker. In every case given the current implementation, they will. Echoing Antoine: If you want some functions to not have access to a module's globals, you can put those functions in a different module. Note that multiprocessing already encapsulates each subprocesses' globals in essentially a separate namespace. Without a specific example, this discussion is going to go around in circles. You have a clear aversion to globals. Antoine and I do not. No one else seems to have found this conversation interesting enough to participate, yet.
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