Author Sebastian.Noack
Recipients Sebastian.Noack, asvetlov, jyasskin, kristjan.jonsson, mklauber, pitrou, sbt
Date 2012-09-30.18:40:15
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1349030417.43.0.125540679322.issue8800@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I was just waiting for a comment pointing out, that my patch comes without tests. :) Note that we are still discussing the implementation and this patch is just a proof of concept. And since the way it is implemented and the API it provides could still change, its quite pointless to write tests, until we at least agreed on the API.

I have uploaded a new patch. The way it is implemented now, is more like the Barrier is implemented. The common code is shared in the threading module and the shared/exclusive lock objects can be pickled now. I have also fixed a bug related to acquiring locks in non-blocking mode.

However the code still uses c_uint, but ctypes (and multiprocessing.sharedtypes) is only imported when ShrdExclLock is called. So it is just a lazy dependency, now. However the reason why I am using ctypes instead of python integers for threading and a BufferWrapper for multiprocessing (as the Barrier does) is, because of 2 of the 4 counters need to be continuously incremented, and c_uint has the nice feature that it can overflow, in contrast to python integers and integers in arrays. Also that way the implementation is simpler and it seems that there isn't much difference under the hood between using BufferWrapper() and RawValue().

A shared/exclusive lock isn't one lock but two locks, which are synchronized, but must be acquired separately. Similar to a pipe, which isn't one file, but one file connected to another file that reads whatever you have written into the first file. So it isn't strange to create two lock objects, as it also isn't strange that os.pipe() returns two file descriptors.

Also having a separate lock object for the shared and exclusive lock, each providing the same API (as Lock and RLock), gives you huge flexibility. You can acquire both locks using the with statement or pass them separately around. So for example when you have a function, thread or child process, that should only be able to acquire either the shared or the exclusive lock, you don't have to pass both locks. That also means that existing code that expects a lock-like object will be compatible with both the shared and exclusive lock.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-09-30 18:40:17Sebastian.Noacksetrecipients: + Sebastian.Noack, pitrou, kristjan.jonsson, jyasskin, asvetlov, sbt, mklauber
2012-09-30 18:40:17Sebastian.Noacksetmessageid: <1349030417.43.0.125540679322.issue8800@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-09-30 18:40:17Sebastian.Noacklinkissue8800 messages
2012-09-30 18:40:16Sebastian.Noackcreate