Many interesting comments on my last musings about IPC. Each and every one of them look very nice and have their application area, go and have a look! These found a weak spot in my heart though:

• Candygram is Erlang style message passing. Very stunning, but to my liking a little bit too much Erlang-like. Nevertheless I was impressed.
• The delegate module was probably the closest to what I was describing. And I'm surprised it's not better known.
• Lastly I can't keep my mind off pylinda. From the moment I started to read about it I fell in love with it. It is Erlang-like enough to satisfy me and also has a huge potential even to talk to other languages. I'm not sure yet how it's API looks as I'd want to do things like running the server as part of the main process (and it being a private server as well then) etc. It got me excited allright.

All this is well though, but I'm not sure I made my main point very clear last time (and fear losing it here in the noise too, I must be a bad writer). Namely, non of this is in the stdlib (yes, xmlrpc is).

I do think there is a need for a good and yet simple pythonesque IPC module in the stdlib. When building cluster or grid systems it seems reasonable to me to stray outside of the stdlib (for now at least). But for simple SMP a module should be making it's way into the stdlib by now IMHO.

Given by what I've seen so far -but beware, I haven't used any of these yet- delegate seems like the best suited candidate. It may need some updating, I can imagine it benefitting from the subprocess module for example, but I certainly think something like it should live in the stdlib.

I wonder what the chances of that happening are.