Carl Meyer <c...@oddbird.net> added the comment:
> Could we (or others) end up with unguarded stale caches if some buggy > extension forgets to chain the calls correctly? Yes. I can really go either way on this. I initially opted for simplicity in the core support at the cost of asking a bit more of clients, on the theory that a) there are lots of ways for a buggy C extension to cause crashes with bad use of the C API, and b) I don't expect there to be very many extensions using this API. But it's also true that the consequences of a mistake here could be hard to debug (and easily blamed to the wrong place), and there might turn out to be more clients for dict-watching than I expect! If the consensus is to prefer CPython tracking an array of callbacks instead, we can try that. > when you say "only one global callback": does that mean per-interpreter, or > per-process? Good question! The currently proposed API suggests per-process, but it's not a question I've given a lot of thought to yet; open to suggestions. It seems like in general the preference is to avoid global state and instead tie things to an interpreter instance? I'll need to do a bit of research to understand exactly how that would affect the implementation. Doesn't seem like it should be a problem, though it might make the lookup at write time to see if we have a callback a bit slower. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue46896> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
