@Dave Cheney: I want to avoid a *global* mutex, because my function can write to different files.
@Konstantin Khomoutov: You are right, I could use a map of mutexes. As Alex Bligh said, I also need to add a mutex on this map, which is a bit complicated... I'm not using concurrency to write faster. I have several goroutines (started by HTTP request) that append strings to the same file. @Konstantin Khomoutov + @Alex Bligh: I like this idea about using a channel + goroutine for each file. It would also help me to not open/close file for each write. My real question is: is there a problem in the *writeBuffer()* function ? It is very simple, and it looks that it works. Le mardi 5 juillet 2016 13:46:38 UTC+2, Alex Bligh a écrit : > > > > On 5 Jul 2016, at 10:38, Pierre Durand <pierre...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > So, I've written writeMutex(), that uses a mutex. > > It works as expected, but in my real code, I'd prefer to avoid mutex. > > (in my real code write() can write to different files; the file's name > is given as argument) > > ... or more idiomatically, set up a channel per file you are writing, make > write() write to that channel, and have a writer go-routine which reads > from that channel and writes to the file itself. > > -- > Alex Bligh > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
