Proposal: Stop enforcing single-writer-multi-reader file access
malcolm.wallace at me.com
Tue Nov 8 13:29:14 CET 2011
> * do you think it important to remove all locking?
There are certainly cases where automatic locking would remain useful.
> * would you be satisfied (or put up with) having to
> explicitly opt-out of locking when opening a file?
> * do you see any value at all in locking by default to
> catch bugs where files are read and written concurrently
> by accident?
The use case whose current behaviour surprised me, was when I wanted a single writer and multiple readers. I did think that was what the standard allowed, but I was mistaken and it turns out that you get single writer *or* multiple readers.
The case for multiple simultaneous writers is harder to make, but it should be possible. I agree that having the unsafe behaviour be the default is probably unwise.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries