[Gdal-dev] Motion to Adopt RFC 16: OGR Thread Safety

[Frank Warmerdam]

mchapman at texelinc.com wrote:
> I agree.  Adding mt to gdal should be done at the application level.  That's
> what I do today and it works great.  

Martin,

I'll concede this would have been my suggestion before I had a
contract to implement in-core thread safety. :-)

But I claim that application level locks are a poor solution for
applications that want to have multiple active queries against a
single layer (address by the GetLayerClone() mechanism).

I think the client is concerned about the cost of application
level locking in situations where there could be long blocks.  But
on thinking about it, it is not immediately clear to me that any
of the actions we are protecting at the driver or datasource level
would have taken very long anyways.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org