"Jonathan Amsterdam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > This is a reply to Alan Morgan, Paul McGuire and Duncan Booth. > > I need mutex M because I have other fields in my class that need to be > thread-safe. > > The reason I want to use a Queue and not a list is that a Queue has > additional synchronization besides the mutex. For instance, Queue.get() > will block the caller until the queue is non-empty. Of course I could > build this behavior on top of a list, but then I'm reinventing the > wheel: Queue.Queue is the perfect thing, except for the problem I > describe. > > I can't release my mutex M and then call Queue.get(). That could be a > race condition: between the time M is released and Queue's mutex is > acquired, another thread could get into my object and mess things up. > (We'd need a specific example to see this, and there may be many cases > where I could safely release M before calling Queue.get(), but in > general it won't work.) > What if you expose an unguarded method on your class, that allows external put()'s to the Queue without first locking M?
-- Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
