Re: [Spyce-users] Pool Module Question

[Ben R. <be...@hy...>]

Thanks Jonathan,

I'm running Spyce 1.3 currently, so I'll give 2.0 a shot.  Hopefully I'll get get some more mileage out of my shared objects.  I'll report back with the results.

I'm using the mod_python configuration.

Also, very sorry for the duplicate list posts.  I was having some list subscription "issues".

Ben Ringold
Hypothetical Software


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Jonathan Ellis" <jon...@ca...>
Date:  Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:44:54 -0700

>On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:25:07 -0600, "Ben Ringold"
><be...@hy...> said:
>
>> I implemented an expiring data cache using Spyce's pool module to store
>> the cached objects.  It appears that there are multiple instances of the
>> pool dictionary on a single server, rather than the single pool I
>> anticipated.  This is fine for objects that can persist through the life
>> of the server instance (database connections etc) but many of the objects
>> I'd like to cache would only be relevent for a few minutes, so multiple
>> pools don't seem to offer much processing relief. 
>> 
>> Does every client thread have it's own pool?  Is there anyway to
>> implement a more unified data cache? 
>
>If you're using an old version of Spyce, each _process_ does have its
>own pool.  2.x versions should detect this and store pool objects as
>pickle files to preserve the "only one pool" property.  What version of
>Spyce are you using, and how are you connecting it to Apache?
>
>-Jonathan
>-- 
>C++ is history repeated as tragedy. Java is history repeated as farce.  --Scott McKay
>
>
 




________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at hypotheticalsoftware.com