Author jsbronder
Recipients jsbronder, r.david.murray, vinay.sajip
Date 2015-07-16.23:46:19
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <20150716234609.GS14415@gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1437088862.53.0.250656232433.issue24645@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On 16/07/15 23:21 +0000, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> 
> Vinay Sajip added the comment:
> 
> I'm not sure I want to make a special case just to support what seems like a somewhat pathological use case (no offence intended).
> 
> If you need this, there's no reason you couldn't subclass QueueHandler and override handle(), is there?

Hey, no offense taken, it wasn't even my code that tripped on this, I
just got the pleasure of debugging it!

Anyways, it's up to you all if you want to include this, as you
mentioned, it's easy enough to work around and I've already done so.

However, the reason I submitted the patch is because I believe using the
I/O lock is redundant as the Queue is handling the necessary
synchronization already.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-07-16 23:46:19jsbrondersetrecipients: + jsbronder, vinay.sajip, r.david.murray
2015-07-16 23:46:19jsbronderlinkissue24645 messages
2015-07-16 23:46:19jsbrondercreate