[docs] [issue15097] Improving wording on the thread-safeness of import
Merlijn van Deen
report at bugs.python.org
Sun Jun 17 17:38:47 CEST 2012
Merlijn van Deen <valhallasw at gmail.com> added the comment:
First off, thank you for your response.
> The existence of an import lock is deliberately omitted from the text,
> and the reader is supposed to abide by the restriction as written
> regardless of the motivation behind it.
> The entire notion of an import lock is obsolete. Python 3.3 does not
> have that anymore.
" This warning is still valid but for a different reason " or " this warning is no longer valid in 3.3 "?
Assuming the first (which is what I guess based on the fact the deadlock still occurs in 3.3), I think the text can still be improved; the current wording suggests to me
a) it's OK to wait for a thread as long as you did not create it
and
b) it's OK to import something that waits for a thread as long as you do it from the main module
- while both cases can still lead to a deadlock.
so, leaving the implementation details out, this is my suggestion:
"Firstly, an import should not have the side effect of waiting for a thread in any way. This can lead to a deadlock if that thread directly or indirectly attempts to import a module."
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue15097>
_______________________________________
More information about the docs
mailing list