On 2007-04-17, Paul Rubin <http> wrote: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The problem is this doesn't work well if you have multiple producers. >> One producer can be finished while the other is still putting values >> on the queue. > > Right, you'd wait for all the producers to finish, then finish the queue: > for p in producer_threads: p.join() > q.finish() > >> The solution I have been thinking on is the following. >> >> Add an open and close operation. Only threads that have the queue >> open can access it. The open call should specify whether you >> want to read or write to the queue or both. When all writers >> have closed the queue and the queue is empty a q.get will >> raise an exception. This may be done by putting a sentinel >> on the queue when the last writer closed the queue. > > That's an idea, but why would readers need to open the queue?
That has to do with how I implemented it. My implementation puts n sentinels on the queue when there are n readers at the moment the last writer closes the queue. I also treat writers differently from read-writers. Read-writers never block, while writers can be blocked if the queue is "full". -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
