On 06.05.2011, at 10:21, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 3:38 PM, fabian.topfstedt > <fabian.topfst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eduardo, >> I will definitely write and attach proper tests, but I think there is one >> decision to make first: Are hanging URLFields problem enough to make Django >> behave differently on Python <=2.5 and >=2.6 (even if the solution only >> changes the behavior for people that explicitly opt-in for that and >> explicitly the timeout argument of the URLField)? >> Even if my answer to this particular case is positive, I think there are >> contrary opinions and I am asking you for yours. > > For my money, this is a situation where Python 2.6+ gives us an > opportunity to fix the problem in a way that Python <= 2.5 doesn't > allow. If there isn't a reasonable workaround for Python 2.5, and the > Python 2.6 solution can't be easily backported into a compatibility > layer, I'd be comfortable with a solution that works for Python 2.6+, > and degrades cleanly into "no solution" under Python <= 2.5.
Agreed. I looked at urllib2 yesterday and found it to be a rather intrusive feature addition so doubt there is a nice workaround. > If you want to be really nice about it, you could even raise a warning > if you try to use a timeout argument under Python 2.5. +1 Jannis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
