[Rd] parallel::mclapply() dummy function on Windows?

[John Fox]

Dear Tim,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-devel-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org]
On
> Behalf Of Tim Triche, Jr.
> Sent: October-07-11 3:05 PM
> To: Prof Brian Ripley
> Cc: r-devel
> Subject: Re: [Rd] parallel::mclapply() dummy function on Windows?
> 
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Prof Brian Ripley
> <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk>wrote:
> 
> >
> > Why would it make it easier?  And how could using a dummy for 'most
users'
> > (who are on Windows) offer them 'good parallel support'?
> 
> 
> Good point.  Most of my users are on unix, because my use of mclapply() is
> primarily to expedite processing of raw scanner data.  Only a handful of
> users for the packages that call mclapply() are on Windows.  Right now, I
> default to having parallel=FALSE flags all over the place, but I'd prefer
for
> the default to be "go as fast as practical in the common case", i.e.,
Unix.
> It would have been more accurate for me to say "I would like to
parallelize
> by default, without having the methods fail on Windows in the default
> configuration" than to claim that I want "good parallel support" for
Windows.
> When I have tried using the foreach/doMC combination in the past, it has
not
> worked out satisfactorily, so I don't know how well I can support Windows
> users... period.

Why don't you just apply the approach you initially suggested in your own
package, defining mclapply() the way you want it? 

I hope this helps,
 John

> 
> Take a look at e.g. package 'boot' to see how to offer alternatives. (A
> > version that uses 'parallel' is pending on CRAN, or see
> > http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/**R/boot_1.3-3.tar.gz<http://www.stats.o
> > x.ac.uk/pub/R/boot_1.3-3.tar.gz>.) Package 'parallel' may in future
> > offer a higher-level abstraction layer that makes offers such a choice,
but
> as the 'boot' code shows, deciding what to send to the workers in a snow-
> style cluster is not simple.
> >
> 
> It seems similar to what I do (off topic: why do you use the file
extension
> '.q' for all of the R/S code files?): pass flags around.  I suppose I was
> just being lazy, but I would love to default to "go as fast as possible"
> without having Windows users get left out in the cold (unless they add
flags
> to their function calls).
> 
> Thank you for your suggestions, I will look into this further.
> 
> --
> Tim Triche, Jr.
> USC Biostatistics
> 
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel