clear() should return prior state in threading.Event

[jmoy]

BPO	29449
Nosy	@tim-one, @rhettinger, @jmoy, @serhiy-storchaka

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2017-02-09.16:24:10.809>
created_at = <Date 2017-02-05.07:37:48.044>
labels = ['3.7', 'invalid', 'type-feature', 'library']
title = 'clear() should return prior state in threading.Event'
updated_at = <Date 2017-02-09.16:24:10.808>
user = 'https://github.com/jmoy'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2017-02-09.16:24:10.808>
actor = 'jmoy'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2017-02-09.16:24:10.809>
closer = 'jmoy'
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2017-02-05.07:37:48.044>
creator = 'jmoy'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 29449
keywords = []
message_count = 6.0
messages = ['287039', '287097', '287108', '287109', '287275', '287435']
nosy_count = 4.0
nosy_names = ['tim.peters', 'rhettinger', 'jmoy', 'serhiy.storchaka']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'low'
resolution = 'not a bug'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue29449'
versions = ['Python 3.7']

[jmoy]

The clear() method for Event objects currently does not return anything.

It would be useful to have it return the state of the Event prior to it being cleared.

This would be useful since multiple threads may wake up from an event at the same time and all may try to clear() the event. A return value from clear will indicate to a thread if it won the race to clear the event.

[rhettinger]

A return value from clear will indicate to a thread if it
won the race to clear the event.

Why would we care who won the race to clear? I would think that the important thing is that the event is cleared, not who did it.

[jmoy]

> A return value from clear will indicate to a thread if it
> won the race to clear the event.

Why would we care who won the race to clear? I would think that the
important thing is that the event is cleared, not who did it.

Here's the scenario that prompted my report: the Event is set to indicate
that certain 'work' has accumulated and one among a pool of workers uses
clear() to claim the work accumulated till that point. If clear() returned
a value, we could easily ensure that only one among the workers woken up
actually does the work.

Of course, in this case it would be more efficient to wake up just one
worker using a Condition object and notify() but then one has to write the
logic to maintain the state of the event. An Event whose clear() returned a
value would allow for a quick and dirty solution.

[serhiy-storchaka]

A return value from clear will indicate to a thread if it won the race to clear the event.

I think other synchronization primitives should be used for this. I'm not sure that other implementations of Event (e.g. multiprocessing.Event) can efficiently return the previous state.

[tim-one]

I can't judge a use case for a thread gimmick in the absence of wholly specified examples. There are too many possible subtleties. Indeed, if I'd do anything with Event.clear() it would be to remove it - I've seen too much code that suffers subtle race bugs when trying to reset an event. The one thing it's clearly good for is announcing a one-time global state change, for which it's sufficient, efficient, clear, and hard to get wrong.

Can you use a Barrier instead? The Barrier design allows reuse with no special care, Barrier.wait() already returns a little integer unique to each thread, and the Barrier constructor even allows a function to be passed in to be executed by (exactly) one of the threads when the Barrier is complete.

[jmoy]

Thanks for the comments above. I'm going to rethink my design. Closing this bug.