multithreading

[Aahz]

In article <mailman.1022277883.28027.python-list at python.org>,
=?iso-8859-1?q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <pinard at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>[Aahz]
>>
>> My response is that instead of trying to take advantage of the few
>> atomic Python constructs, instead code defensively and always use
>> thread-safe mechanisms for passing information.  Because Python has a
>> powerful and simple Queue, this is straightforward to accomplish.
>
>But abusing Queues for very simple things, a bit everywhere, might yield
>code bloat, and impinge readability.  This is a bit like if someone was
>inviting everyone to abuse fixed point integer arithmetic all over as a
>way to program defensively against floating point arithmetic.

You're both misreading me and overstating your point, IMO.  I completely
agree that RLock() is a valuable and necessary tool for managing critical
sections of code.  However, I stand by my claim that Queue() should be
the primary mechanism for passing data around.  Getting the semantics of
Event() and Semaphore() correct (not even talking about Condition() --
<shudder>) can be extremely difficult for all but the simplest cases,
leading to application deadlock.

Queue is both powerful and simple, and I therefore invoke Python's
"There's Only One Way" principle.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"In the end, outside of spy agencies, people are far too trusting and
willing to help."  --Ira Winkler