Missed this on the first read:
Michel> with explicit locks programmers will forget, or become confused,
Michel> with when and how to explicitly lock and unlock. 'synchronize'
Michel> locks at the beginning of the block and unlocks at the end.
Michel> There is no forgetting.
You still need to remember to 'synchronize' access to the data. That's the
bigger problem in my mind.
It seems to me that the more locks I need to manage, the harder it will be
to identify potential deadlock situations. With fewer locks (I use five
RLock objects and a Queue in my XML-RPC server) I think it's easier to
compartmentalize functionality in my feeble brain and avoid deadlock, with
some potential loss of execution overlap.
Skip
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4