On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Ivan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, you are right. But I asked for another reason. > For example, I see, that werkzeug's cache write cache trough temporary > file > https://github.com/mitsuhiko/werkzeug/blob/master/werkzeug/contrib/cache.py#L660 > But Django cache do not use neither, tmp file or file locking. > So, multiple processes can write a file simultaneously. Also, other > processes can obtain incomplete data. > > I think it's a bug, so I asked a question in this group > (django-developers). >
Ok - *that* is a different matter. For future reference, if you're suggesting that something might be a bug, it's helpful to make that clear in your question. As I said in my response on django-users, the file based cache is primarily there as a proof of concept that the caching API can be targeted at multiple backends. However, if someone were to propose a patch to add file locking or temp file write-throughs, I don't imagine it would be turned down. So - feel free to open a ticket for this; and if you want to try your hand at a patch, this should be a relatively simple patch to create (although tests could be a little bit complex). As a helper, the django.core.files.locks module already contains some OS-abstracted code for file locking. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
