Thomas Kluyver

Thanks all! @willingc, yes, it would be good to see your drawing, to check if the explanation conveyed what I was thinking clearly.

Thanks, that looks good.

> a proposal (specific to IPython) that will use a nanny process to implement the first two proposals. This is absolutely not specific to IPython - the proposal is for...

@lbustelo The idea is that the nanny and the kernel are always running together on the same system. They may both be remote from the frontend (e.g. the notebook server),...

The frontend could ask the nanny to set up a named pipe and forward the data over the network. But let's deal with that when we come to it.

I don't think it's too big a change ideologically. The main effect is that there will be some extra messages to document between the frontend and the nanny, which the...

As discussed, the functions of a nanny are not something kernels can readily handle themselves: - Capturing a process' own std streams at the OS level is fiddly on Unix,...

This would make one change, as I intend it: by deprecating the heartbeat as something kernels are required to support, applications using a remote kernel will need the nanny to...

@mpacer was working on machinery to allow custom nbconvert behaviour from the notebook web server, in https://github.com/jupyter/notebook/pull/2413, so I imagine he'll be interested in this.

I spotted a few minor things that I think should be fixed (see above). Once those are dealt with, I think we can merge this.