Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:00:38 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@exit2shell.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: python and HUGE_STACK_SIZE Message-ID: <6201873e1003261500nd986483mc9ceb835d47e7d83@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <B473412B-0083-476C-A4F1-413158BBB639@exit2shell.com> References: <4702BA39-7C18-45C3-9920-9E460502B58F@freebsd.org> <4BAA9C32.6040606@delphij.net> <2D129848-8A41-4BB5-A58C-A9A35D5FBD9A@mac.com> <6201873e1003242207m49351c55id94341d872fd8e17@mail.gmail.com> <B473412B-0083-476C-A4F1-413158BBB639@exit2shell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@exit2shell.com>wrote: > To me, it seems like the best behavior would be to default to compiling > with that set. I'll create > a patch over the weekend and open a PR > Django and twisted don't need it. If the only app which does is zope, defaulting to on seems to be overkill. No offense to zope users, but I imagine freebsd zope installs aren't on every corner. It would be interesting to hear more feedback from other sources, and your coworker with the original experience. Within python, stack size(in regards to sockets) errors are made quite evident. What zope does to it I have no idea, maybe there is some abstraction going on. My main objection that I use python a lot, especially for quick network apps. One example is that I have written a python based NMS, and if every thread is going to start using more memory, then I will have to do things differently. That's okay too, but if others are doing anything similar there could be more ripples down the road. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6201873e1003261500nd986483mc9ceb835d47e7d83>