Jon Blower wrote:
> So presumably if you use the NetCDF file cache, you have to do the
> synchronization yourself, since you might be transparently sharing
> file handles? That's an aspect of the cache that hadn't occurred to
> me before...
The way that the cache is designed to work is that you get back a NetcdfFile
object, which should then used only in a single thread so you dont need
synchronization ("thread-confinement"), such as to answer a single request in a
server. Until you release that NetcdfFile object, no one else can get it from
the cache. If another request is made for that same NetcdfFile while its
locked, a new NetcdfFile is opened.
And of course, the cache itself is thread-safe. So if you use it properly, you
never have to do synchronization yourself.
