[Python-Dev] PEP 371 Discussion (pyProcessing Module) (original) (raw)

Mark Hammond mhammond at skippinet.com.au
Sun Jun 1 03:28:43 CEST 2008

2008/5/30 Farshid Lashkari <flashk at gmail.com>: > I'm not sure if there will be any side affects to modifying > sys.executable though. Should this be the official way of supporting > embedded interpreters or should there be a > multiprocessing.setExecutable() method?

+1 for setExecutable (I'd prefer setexecutable, to be PEP 8 compliant). Make it explicit, rather than fiddling with stuff in sys manually.

sys.executable typically means the "current" executable, and py2exe etc already fiddles with that. The question in such a context seems to be "what executable should I use for this processing functionality?". In a py2exe like environment, it might not be unreasonable to assume that if a custom executable is to be used, that custom executable may have a different command-line or other special requirements. Further, I could imagine a system that uses an alternative way of starting processes (eg, 'distributed COM') where the concept of 'executable' (or even 'command-line') don't make much sense.

So it seems that maybe simply "setExecutable()" isn't the correct abstraction here, but maybe a "factory" approach, so the entire process creation mechanism can be replaced rather than just the name of the executable to spawn?

Cheers,

Mark

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list