Message308001
It's possible that the Mailman example can just assume that the mailbox will be flushed and unlocked on __exit__(), so it could just call .close(). Then the question is whether entering the CM should lock the mailbox. The two cases are:
1. It doesn't, so you'd have to do:
with mbox(...) as mb:
mb.lock()
# ...
2. It does, so if for some reason you didn't want the lock, you'd have to:
with mbox(...) as mb:
mb.unlock()
We *could* add a `lock` argument to the constructor to take the ambiguity away. But I would claim that it doesn't make much sense to acquire an mbox in a CM and *not* lock it. The idiom says to me "I want to do things to the mbox, exclusively, and if that requires locking it, JFDI".
So I would argue that the __enter__() should acquire the lock by default if the underlying mailbox supports it. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-12-10 23:11:59 | barry | set | recipients:
+ barry, ncoghlan, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka, sblondon |
2017-12-10 23:11:59 | barry | set | messageid: <1512947519.97.0.213398074469.issue32234@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2017-12-10 23:11:59 | barry | link | issue32234 messages |
2017-12-10 23:11:59 | barry | create | |
|