Message106376
In this case, "acquire" isn't ambiguous. All the other lock types actually acquire a write lock, so it makes sense to have the operation with the same name they use also acquire a write lock on this object.
I realized that read/write locks are actually shared/exclusive locks, which might form the basis for a name that doesn't collide with RLock. Boost (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_43_0/doc/html/thread/synchronization.html#thread.synchronization.mutex_types.shared_mutex) uses shared_mutex for the concept, so SLock or SELock? There are some algorithms that write while the lock is acquired non-exclusive, so "shared" is actually a better name for the concept, even though posix and Java used read/write.
The possibility of lock downgrading (turning an exclusive lock into a shared lock, without allowing any other exclusive acquisitions in the mean time) might inform your decision about how to name "unlock". |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-05-24 17:43:39 | jyasskin | set | recipients:
+ jyasskin, pitrou, kristjan.jonsson |
2010-05-24 17:43:39 | jyasskin | set | messageid: <1274723019.82.0.91925312787.issue8800@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-05-24 17:43:38 | jyasskin | link | issue8800 messages |
2010-05-24 17:43:37 | jyasskin | create | |
|