On 9/13/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > When I read the plain term EXCLUSIVE I read that to mean nobody else can > > read -or- write, ie: not shared in any sense. > > You're right, it's not the best term. > > > Lets extend these base > > concepts to SHARED_READ, SHARED_WRITE, EXCLUSIVE_READ, EXCLUSIVE_WRITE > > EXCLUDE_WRITE might be better, since EXCLUSIVE_WRITE seems > to imply that one is writing oneself as well. > > > EXCLUSIVE_READ - no others can read this buffer while this view is > > open. > > This is the one that I don't think is necessary. I don't > see a need to ever prevent others from *reading* if they > really want to and are prepared to deal with the > consequences. Most of the time the other party will be using > READ_LOCK which includes EXCLUDE_WRITE, so it will fail > if you're already holding a write lock. > > So we just have > > READ > WRITE > READ_LOCK = READ | EXCLUDE_WRITE > WRITE_LOCK = WRITE | EXCLUDE_WRITE
I like your terminology. Also, agreed that EXCLUDE_READ is not likely to be necessary; I listed it for completeness sake. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
