[IPython-dev] connecting ipythonqt to an existing kernel should not require specifying 4 ports
Mon Sep 13 13:27:39 CDT 2010
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 9/9/10 5:58 PM, MinRK wrote:
>> In order to connect a second ipythonqt frontend to an existing kernel, I must
>> specify by hand all 4 ports at the command-line. This really shouldn't be the
>> case, especially since the default behavior is to have the ports ordered
>> I think it should at least be able to try using consecutive ports when a single
>> port is given, or use a two-stage connection model that doesn't require clients
>> to ever know more than one port, as is done in the parallel code.
>> Having to type 'ipythonqt -e --xreq 65273 --sub 65274 --rep 65275 --hb 65276',
>> as I just had to, just doesn't make sense.
> I like the two-stage connection model; you open and advertise one REQ/REP port
> for configuring clients with the other ports.
Yep, we are going to implement this.
> Hopefully, 0MQ will grow the ability to share multiple named sockets on a single
> TCP/IP port, but they've only briefly discussed it so far.
> Robert Kern
> "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
> that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
> an underlying truth."
> -- Umberto Eco
> IPython-dev mailing list
Brian E. Granger, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Physics
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
More information about the IPython-dev