[reportlab-users] reportlab and Zope

Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:31:02 -0400

--------------070309080207010509030505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

ReportLab is not thread safe.  I don't know enough about Zope, but
"serializer queue" sounds bad to me -- why not just run ReportLab in
separate subprocesses (nonserially)?

   -- Aaron Watters

Jerome Alet wrote:

>On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 07:12:46PM +0100, Robin Becker wrote:
>
>>In article <20020717153726.GA12191@mail.librelogiciel.com>, Jerome Alet
>>
>>>beware: some people say that problem may arise because RL is not
>>>thread safe, with low volume I haven't seen any, but as always: YMMV.
>>>
>>.....
>>As for the thread stuff it's risky to just use RL bare. My take on this
>>is that as RL is a relatively heavyweight process access to it should be
>>done using a serialiser queue. Then threads can push jobs onto the queue
>>in a safe manner and choose what action the Q should take at finish.
>>
>
>You're right : my low volume is equivalent to "one at a time", and there's
>a loooooonnnnnnnnnnggggggggg time between two requests, so no risk :-)
>
>bye,
>
>Jerome Alet
>_______________________________________________
>reportlab-users mailing list
>reportlab-users@reportlab.com
>http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/reportlab-users
>
>

--------------070309080207010509030505
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
ReportLab is not thread safe. &nbsp;I don't know enough about Zope, but<br>
"serializer queue" sounds bad to me -- why not just run ReportLab in<br>
separate subprocesses (nonserially)?<br>
<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;-- Aaron Watters<br>
<br>
Jerome Alet wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20020717182417.GA13584@mail.librelogiciel.com">
  <pre wrap="">On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 07:12:46PM +0100, Robin Becker wrote:<br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:20020717153726.GA12191@mail.librelogiciel.com">&lt;20020717153726.GA12191@mail.librelogiciel.com&gt;</a>, Jerome Alet<br></pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">beware: some people say that problem may arise because RL is not<br>thread safe, with low volume I haven't seen any, but as always: YMMV.<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">.....<br>As for the thread stuff it's risky to just use RL bare. My take on this<br>is that as RL is a relatively heavyweight process access to it should be<br>done using a serialiser queue. Then threads can push jobs onto the queue<br>in a safe manner and choose what action the Q should take at finish.<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><!----><br>You're right : my low volume is equivalent to "one at a time", and there's<br>a loooooonnnnnnnnnnggggggggg time between two requests, so no risk :-)<br><br>bye,<br><br>Jerome Alet<br>_______________________________________________<br>reportlab-users mailing list<br><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:reportlab-users@reportlab.com">reportlab-users@reportlab.com</a><br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/reportlab-users">http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/reportlab-users</a><br><br><br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      </body>
      </html>

--------------070309080207010509030505--