Can output of one kernel be called from another on the same PC?











up vote
5
down vote

favorite
3












I have two instances of Mathematica running on the same PC. Can I call the output of one from the other?



For example if Out[100] is on kernel1 how do I refer to it on kernel2?










share|improve this question
























  • Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
    – Chris Degnen
    Dec 5 at 22:40










  • Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
    – Mike Honeychurch
    Dec 5 at 23:39










  • This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 1:13






  • 1




    Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
    – Kuba
    Dec 6 at 8:49










  • @Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
    – Maesumi
    Dec 6 at 20:29

















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
3












I have two instances of Mathematica running on the same PC. Can I call the output of one from the other?



For example if Out[100] is on kernel1 how do I refer to it on kernel2?










share|improve this question
























  • Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
    – Chris Degnen
    Dec 5 at 22:40










  • Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
    – Mike Honeychurch
    Dec 5 at 23:39










  • This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 1:13






  • 1




    Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
    – Kuba
    Dec 6 at 8:49










  • @Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
    – Maesumi
    Dec 6 at 20:29















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
5
down vote

favorite
3






3





I have two instances of Mathematica running on the same PC. Can I call the output of one from the other?



For example if Out[100] is on kernel1 how do I refer to it on kernel2?










share|improve this question















I have two instances of Mathematica running on the same PC. Can I call the output of one from the other?



For example if Out[100] is on kernel1 how do I refer to it on kernel2?







front-end






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 5 at 22:27

























asked Dec 5 at 22:18









Maesumi

421210




421210












  • Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
    – Chris Degnen
    Dec 5 at 22:40










  • Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
    – Mike Honeychurch
    Dec 5 at 23:39










  • This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 1:13






  • 1




    Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
    – Kuba
    Dec 6 at 8:49










  • @Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
    – Maesumi
    Dec 6 at 20:29




















  • Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
    – Chris Degnen
    Dec 5 at 22:40










  • Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
    – Mike Honeychurch
    Dec 5 at 23:39










  • This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 1:13






  • 1




    Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
    – Kuba
    Dec 6 at 8:49










  • @Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
    – Maesumi
    Dec 6 at 20:29


















Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
– Chris Degnen
Dec 5 at 22:40




Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
– Chris Degnen
Dec 5 at 22:40












Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
– Mike Honeychurch
Dec 5 at 23:39




Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
– Mike Honeychurch
Dec 5 at 23:39












This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 1:13




This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 1:13




1




1




Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
– Kuba
Dec 6 at 8:49




Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
– Kuba
Dec 6 at 8:49












@Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
– Maesumi
Dec 6 at 20:29






@Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
– Maesumi
Dec 6 at 20:29












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
10
down vote













Update



(comparison to other answers)



This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.



(multiple Mathematica sessions)



If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.



(improved answer)



Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out).



SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]


And, the same example as before:



RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




Original answer



There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:



RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]


It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:



RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.



Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic:



r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]



1596




but in this case the actual value is not available:



Head @ r



Dynamic







share|improve this answer























  • Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something like MathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]] I feel and specify the Evaluator...
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 5:44


















up vote
7
down vote













Update



Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle". First we do this on kernel 1:



TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]


And then on kernel 2:



TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]

{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}


The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.



Original



Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.



I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links for inter-kernel communication.



The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:



tunneling



We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle". The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.



In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.



TunnelWrite will write to the LinkObject and TunnelRead will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate if you want to circumvent this behavior.



There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead (it can be different on both ends).



If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.






share|improve this answer























  • Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
    – Kuba
    Dec 6 at 8:00










  • Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. Although LinkConnect might work just without the shared memory argument.
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 8:47













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "387"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f187404%2fcan-output-of-one-kernel-be-called-from-another-on-the-same-pc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
10
down vote













Update



(comparison to other answers)



This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.



(multiple Mathematica sessions)



If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.



(improved answer)



Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out).



SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]


And, the same example as before:



RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




Original answer



There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:



RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]


It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:



RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.



Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic:



r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]



1596




but in this case the actual value is not available:



Head @ r



Dynamic







share|improve this answer























  • Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something like MathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]] I feel and specify the Evaluator...
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 5:44















up vote
10
down vote













Update



(comparison to other answers)



This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.



(multiple Mathematica sessions)



If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.



(improved answer)



Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out).



SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]


And, the same example as before:



RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




Original answer



There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:



RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]


It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:



RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.



Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic:



r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]



1596




but in this case the actual value is not available:



Head @ r



Dynamic







share|improve this answer























  • Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something like MathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]] I feel and specify the Evaluator...
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 5:44













up vote
10
down vote










up vote
10
down vote









Update



(comparison to other answers)



This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.



(multiple Mathematica sessions)



If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.



(improved answer)



Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out).



SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]


And, the same example as before:



RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




Original answer



There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:



RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]


It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:



RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.



Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic:



r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]



1596




but in this case the actual value is not available:



Head @ r



Dynamic







share|improve this answer














Update



(comparison to other answers)



This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.



(multiple Mathematica sessions)



If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.



(improved answer)



Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out).



SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]


And, the same example as before:



RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




Original answer



There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:



RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]


It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:



RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1



1596



1597




where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.



Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic:



r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]



1596




but in this case the actual value is not available:



Head @ r



Dynamic








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 6 at 17:08

























answered Dec 5 at 22:57









Carl Woll

66.4k385174




66.4k385174












  • Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something like MathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]] I feel and specify the Evaluator...
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 5:44


















  • Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something like MathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]] I feel and specify the Evaluator...
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 5:44
















Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something like MathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]] I feel and specify the Evaluator...
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 5:44




Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something like MathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]] I feel and specify the Evaluator...
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 5:44










up vote
7
down vote













Update



Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle". First we do this on kernel 1:



TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]


And then on kernel 2:



TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]

{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}


The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.



Original



Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.



I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links for inter-kernel communication.



The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:



tunneling



We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle". The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.



In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.



TunnelWrite will write to the LinkObject and TunnelRead will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate if you want to circumvent this behavior.



There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead (it can be different on both ends).



If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.






share|improve this answer























  • Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
    – Kuba
    Dec 6 at 8:00










  • Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. Although LinkConnect might work just without the shared memory argument.
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 8:47

















up vote
7
down vote













Update



Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle". First we do this on kernel 1:



TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]


And then on kernel 2:



TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]

{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}


The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.



Original



Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.



I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links for inter-kernel communication.



The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:



tunneling



We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle". The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.



In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.



TunnelWrite will write to the LinkObject and TunnelRead will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate if you want to circumvent this behavior.



There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead (it can be different on both ends).



If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.






share|improve this answer























  • Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
    – Kuba
    Dec 6 at 8:00










  • Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. Although LinkConnect might work just without the shared memory argument.
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 8:47















up vote
7
down vote










up vote
7
down vote









Update



Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle". First we do this on kernel 1:



TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]


And then on kernel 2:



TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]

{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}


The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.



Original



Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.



I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links for inter-kernel communication.



The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:



tunneling



We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle". The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.



In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.



TunnelWrite will write to the LinkObject and TunnelRead will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate if you want to circumvent this behavior.



There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead (it can be different on both ends).



If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.






share|improve this answer














Update



Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle". First we do this on kernel 1:



TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]


And then on kernel 2:



TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]

{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}


The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.



Original



Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.



I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links for inter-kernel communication.



The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:



tunneling



We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle". The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.



In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.



TunnelWrite will write to the LinkObject and TunnelRead will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate if you want to circumvent this behavior.



There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead (it can be different on both ends).



If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 6 at 4:05

























answered Dec 6 at 3:56









b3m2a1

25.9k256152




25.9k256152












  • Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
    – Kuba
    Dec 6 at 8:00










  • Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. Although LinkConnect might work just without the shared memory argument.
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 8:47




















  • Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
    – Kuba
    Dec 6 at 8:00










  • Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. Although LinkConnect might work just without the shared memory argument.
    – b3m2a1
    Dec 6 at 8:47


















Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
– Kuba
Dec 6 at 8:00




Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
– Kuba
Dec 6 at 8:00












Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. Although LinkConnect might work just without the shared memory argument.
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 8:47






Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. Although LinkConnect might work just without the shared memory argument.
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 8:47




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f187404%2fcan-output-of-one-kernel-be-called-from-another-on-the-same-pc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

Alcedinidae

Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]