This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | jyasskin |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Pankrat, benjamin.peterson, jyasskin |
| Date | 2008年03月18日.02:34:19 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.20476179 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1205807660.32.0.980573823281.issue2320@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Ludwig isn't really proposing that subprocess.Popen be thread-safe. That would imply that you could mess with the same Popen instance concurrently from separate threads, which shouldn't be allowed. But instead, he's asking that it not be thread-hostile: that the constructor can be called from multiple threads. Since every call in a threaded app would need to be protected by the same lock, and there's no good place to put that lock, it's a reasonable request. Most existing python types provide this guarantee too: list() can be called concurrently from lots of threads. So I think it's a real bug. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年03月18日 02:34:20 | jyasskin | set | spambayes_score: 0.204762 -> 0.20476179 recipients: + jyasskin, benjamin.peterson, Pankrat |
| 2008年03月18日 02:34:20 | jyasskin | set | spambayes_score: 0.204762 -> 0.204762 messageid: <1205807660.32.0.980573823281.issue2320@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年03月18日 02:34:19 | jyasskin | link | issue2320 messages |
| 2008年03月18日 02:34:19 | jyasskin | create | |