Davin:
> This is my fault because I altered SharedMemoryManager to no longer support functionality from SyncManager that I thought could be confusing to include. I am just now discovering this and am not immediately sure if simply removing the SharedMemoryManager-relevant lines from your patch is the right solution but I wanted to mention this thought right away.
If SharedMemoryManager subclasses SyncManager then I *think* it should obey the SyncManager contract. Regardless of the shared memory facility, the user may also want to "shared" regular proxies between processes.
(to be honest, I don't think the multiprocessing Manager facility is used a lot currently...)