[Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4? (original) (raw)
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Tue Nov 19 23:50:15 CET 2013
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:05:07 +0100 "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
Am 19.11.13 21:28, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
> Well, unless you propose a patch before Saturday, I will happily ignore > your proposal. See http://bugs.python.org/file32709/framing.diff
Ok, thanks. So now that I look at the patch I see the following problems with this idea:
"pickle + framing" becomes a different protocol than "pickle" alone, which means we lose the benefit of protocol autodetection. It's as though pickle.load() required you to give the protocol number, instead of inferring it from the pickle bytestream.
it is less efficient than framing built inside pickle, since it adds separate buffers and memory copies (while the point of framing is to make buffering more efficient).
Your idea is morally similar to saying "we don't need to optimize the size of pickles, since you can gzip them anyway". However, the fact that the _pickle module currently goes to lengths to try to optimize buffering, implies to me that it's reasonable to also improve the pickle protocol so as to optimize buffering.
Regards
Antoine.
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]