Proposal: Stop enforcing single-writer-multi-reader file access

malcolm.wallace malcolm.wallace at
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...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list