(original) (raw)

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:24 AM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

Hi Sean,

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 19:23:06 -0400
Sean Harrington <seanharr11@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.

IMHO, global variables don't break encapsulation if they remain private
to the module where they actually play a role.

Of course, there are also global-like alternatives to globals, such as
class attributes... The multiprocessing module itself uses globals (or
quasi-globals) internally for various implementation details.

>>> Yes, class attributes are a viable alternative. I've written about this here. Still, the argument is not against global variables, class attributes or any close cousins -- it is simply that developers shouldn't be forced to use these.

\> 3\. If you don't like globals, you could probably do something like
\> > lazily-initialize the resource when a function needing it is executed;
\> > this also avoids creating the resource if the child doesn't use it at
\> > all. Would that work for you?
\> >
\> > I have nothing against globals, my gripe is with being enforced to use
\> them for every Pool use case. Further, if initializing the resource is
\> expensive, we only want to do this ONE time per worker process.

That's what I meant with lazy initialization: initialize it if not
already done, otherwise just use the already-initialized resource.
It's a common pattern.

(you can view it as a 1-element cache if you prefer)

>>> Sorry - I wasn't following your initial suggestion. This is a valid solution for ONE of the general use cases (where we initialize objects in each worker post-fork). However it fails for the other Pool use case of "initializing a big object in your parent, and passing to each worker, without using globals."

\> > As a more general remark, I understand the desire to make the Pool
\> > object more flexible, but we can also not pile up features until it
\> > satisfies all use cases.
\> >
\> > I understand that this is a legitimate concern, but this is about API
\> approachability. Python end-users of Pool are forced to declare a global
\> from a lexical scope. Most Python end-users probably don't even know this
\> is possible.

Hmm... We might have a disagreement on the target audience of the
multiprocessing module. multiprocessing isn't very high-level, I would
expect it to be used by experienced programmers who know how to mutate
a global variable from a lexical scope.

>>> It is one thing to MUTATE a global from a lexical scope. No gripes there. The specific concept I'm referencing here, is "DECLARING a global variable, from within a lexical scope". This is not as a intuitive for most programmers.

For non-programmer end-users, such as data scientists, there are
higher-level libraries such as Celery (http://www.celeryproject.org/)
and Dask distributed (https://distributed.readthedocs.io/en/latest/).
Perhaps it would be worth mentioning them in the documentation.

>>> We likely do NOT have disagreements on the multiprocessing module. Multiprocessing is NOT high-level, I agree. But the beauty of the "Pool" API is that it gives non-programmer end-users (like data scientists) the ability to leverage multiple cores, without (in most cases) needing to know implementation details about multiprocessing. All they need to understand is the higher-order-function "map()", which is a very simple concept. (I even sound over-complicated myself calling it a "higher-order-function"...)

Regards

Antoine.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/seanharr11%40gmail.com