Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > Wouldn't it be more interesting to make the app's get() method > asynchronous as well, so that each chunk actually gets passed > separately?
That's a good point. I'll try to look into it. > Or maybe split it up into two benchmarks, one that exercises the > asynchronous client (as your current code does) and one that shifts more > work to the server side? Not sure if it's worth it, but might be worth > trying. I think it would cover two different use cases that way. You still need a client to exercise the server, and a server to exercise the client, so I'm not sure how to separate them (short of using an external utility, which would add dependencies). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19236> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
