GHUM wrote:
Tim,
... why use a Semaphore rather than a Mutex?
as much as I understood the documentation at MSDN
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms686927(VS.85).aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms686946(VS.85).aspx
a mutex seems to be nothing else than a special case of a semaphore?
That is, a semaphore can be created to allow MAX_SEM_COUNT concurrent
runners, and MUTEX defaults to one and only one ...
The other api-spells are identical, like wait_for_xxxx...; so propably
I stumbled on the working Semaphore Code before, or in some ancient
win32 wrapper createMutex was not documented or something in that
aspect:)
I think it hardly matters except that someone (like me :) )
coming to your code who's familiar with the uses of mutex
and semaphore elsewhere -- they're not Microsoft inventions
as I'm sure you realise -- will be a little stumped by the
fact that a mutex is pretty much the canonical recipe for
allowing only one instance of an app, yet you're using a
semaphore which can be used for slightly different
purposes. I'd be wondering whether you had some more
sophisticated model in mind which I was unable to fathom...
Or why notsimply use the bound socket as its own mutex? I know
Windows won't allow you to rebind the same socket to the
same addr/port in two different processes (unless perhaps
you play some trickery with the socket options).
My experience was that this is correct for certain values of "allow"
and "trickery". Sometimes the binding seems to get allowed but does
not work.
Fair enough.
TJG
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
