[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Could you: > > lockerA= Locker( listA, listB ) > lockerA.op( listB.reverse ) > lockerA.op( listA.pop ) > > Where lockerA ops acquire the locks on all its threads?
I don't understand that question. The main thing to understand is that multi-threaded programming is complicated (especially if you're after high performance), and very difficult to get right without knowing exactly what you're doing. The generally preferred approach in Python is to keep things simple at some performance cost. Your Locker approach above looks sort of reasonable if you can be absolutely sure that nothing else can mess with listA or listB concurrently with those locker operations. Normally you would put listA and listB into a single object along with a lock, then do operations on that object. You might check the Python Cookbook for some specific recipes and sample code for this stuff. If you've used Java, Python's general threading mechanisms are similar, but they are in the library rather than built into the language (i.e. there is no "synchronized" keyword, you have to do that locking explicitly). What is the actual application, if you don't mind saying? Are you sure that you really need concurrency? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
