Hi Luc,

I'm not sure. It was requested and I'm not familiar enough with Python threading. Is this something the data processing folks need? Or is threading in the C++ layer sufficient?

--
Billy K. Poon
Research Scientist, Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road, M/S 33R0345
Berkeley, CA 94720
Tel: (510) 486-5709
Fax: (510) 486-5909

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Luc Bourhis <luc_j_bourhis@mac.com> wrote:
Hi Billy,

On 26 Sep 2017, at 17:11, Billy Poon <BKPoon@lbl.gov> wrote:

I just chatted with Tristan Croll from Cambridge at the Phenix developer workshop. Would the Global Interpreter Lock be an issue?

It sounds like we should be releasing the lock before doing any threading and then reacquiring the lock afterwards.

So that means you plan your threaded code to call back into Python, then? This would be quite unusual in the context of the cctbx but I haven’t followed development closely for a long while, so I might have missed something.

Best wishes,

Luc


_______________________________________________
cctbxbb mailing list
cctbxbb@phenix-online.org
http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/cctbxbb