on Tue Nov 06 2007, skip-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org wrote:
> Today I added lockfile usage into Dave Abrahams' safe_pickle function, in
> the process renaming it to safe_pickle_write and adding a corresponding
> safe_pickle_read. I then replaced all pickle.{dump,load} calls with the
> relevant safe_pickle_{write,read} functions.
>
> This code has not been checked in yet. I've attached a diff against the
> current rev 3168. I'm interested in how people think I should proceed.
> Some possibilities:
>
> * throw it out - we don't need dependencies on external crap
> * keep it but pull lockfile into the spambayes package for ease of
> distribution
> * check the changes in on head
> * create a branch and check the changes in there
> * get 1.1 out the door, damn it! leave this for 1.2 (around 2011)
> * keep the safe_pickle_{read,write} functions but take out the lockfile
> stuff.
>
> Feedback please.
I'm not really in a position to comment on how this package ought to
evolve w.r.t. SpamBayes, but I want to express my gratitude for your
attention to "handling the problem right," and my support for
immediately including in SpamBayes some form of concurrent read/write
protection that's at least as capable as my patch.
Thanks a lot for spending time on this,
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________
spambayes-dev mailing list
spambayes-dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes-dev
