)]}'
{"tooz/drivers/zookeeper.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":1297,"name":"Joshua Harlow","email":"jxharlow@godaddy.com","username":"harlowja"},"change_message_id":"3da757a3161ba07c4df3f892240a3599be16e508","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":57,"context_line":""},{"line_number":58,"context_line":"    def acquire(self, blocking\u003dTrue):"},{"line_number":59,"context_line":"        blocking, timeout \u003d utils.convert_blocking(blocking)"},{"line_number":60,"context_line":"        if not self.acquired:"},{"line_number":61,"context_line":"            self._lock.acquire(blocking\u003dblocking,"},{"line_number":62,"context_line":"                               timeout\u003dtimeout)"},{"line_number":63,"context_line":"        return self.acquired"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"3a57f1b5_7e86f1ba","line":60,"updated":"2016-02-09 19:16:49.000000000","message":"So this makes the behavior of this lock special,\n\nCurrently looking at the other tooz lock drivers they don\u0027t check for duplicate acquisition in this manner (and they just go ahead and reacquire) which is more aligned with how threading.Lock() works.\n\nSo overall I\u0027d rather keep the behavior the same across all lock types,\n\nIMHO exposing the acquired property is fine though, since other lock classes are already doing that (and we should probably make that more consistent overall).","commit_id":"789251c7f5aef3010bb38bf9682516924257050c"},{"author":{"_account_id":6773,"name":"Lucas Alvares Gomes","email":"lucasagomes@gmail.com","username":"lucasagomes"},"change_message_id":"4f937744ae687d5eab23b6925d70c81293eee003","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":57,"context_line":""},{"line_number":58,"context_line":"    def acquire(self, blocking\u003dTrue):"},{"line_number":59,"context_line":"        blocking, timeout \u003d utils.convert_blocking(blocking)"},{"line_number":60,"context_line":"        if not self.acquired:"},{"line_number":61,"context_line":"            self._lock.acquire(blocking\u003dblocking,"},{"line_number":62,"context_line":"                               timeout\u003dtimeout)"},{"line_number":63,"context_line":"        return self.acquired"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"3a57f1b5_b1c47e40","line":60,"in_reply_to":"3a57f1b5_7e86f1ba","updated":"2016-02-10 09:57:16.000000000","message":"Right, gotcha... Yeah consistent is good. We can simulate the threading.Lock() behavior by removing that check. I will do it in the next patch set and update the patch.","commit_id":"789251c7f5aef3010bb38bf9682516924257050c"}]}