Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Writing to same file from two threads Date: 26 Feb 2013 20:08:05 GMT Organization: Freie Universitaet Berlin Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <7xliabvv4g.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de X6lYoEI+aHB/L0ou2l0IOgKR1jHU6VU0Utto+grVly9gmL X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.9.3-20080506 ("Dalintober") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.30-1-amd64 (x86_64)) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:40001 Paul Rubin wrote: > jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) writes: > > in garbled output (i.e. having some output from A inside a > > line written by B or vice versae) because the "main thread" or > Yes they do get garbled like that. Preferred Python style is put a > single thread in charge of all the i/o to that file, and communicate > with it by message passing through Queue objects. That is safer than > directly using locks. Thank you for confirmig my suspicion;-) But you have induced another question: why is using a Queue safer than locking (not that I doubt that it might be more elegant etc.). Is it "safer" because it's less likely that one gets it wrong (e.g. by for- grtting to acquire the lock) or is there something inherently unsafe about locks? Thank you and best regards, Jens -- \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de \__________________________ http://toerring.de