[Facundo] > But, I recognize that maybe it's [connect] not the best name. What about > "create_connection"?
I have no strong feelings about it, other than to say it should not be "connect". How about * connect_to_server() * open_connection() * open_client_connection() There's no need to include "timeout" in the name, IMO. [Alan] >> Another question I would ask is: "How do I ensure that my newly >> created connected client socket is in blocking mode, *without* making >> any assumptions about the value of socket.getdefaulttimeout()?" [Facundo] > Call like this: > > newsock = socket.connect((..., ...)) > newsock.setblocking(1) Ah, but it's too late by the time the socket.connect call returns: the timeout/blocking behaviour of the socket.connect call is the very thing we're trying to control. Whenever I look at the proposed API, I think: What happens when the socket.connect call is preceded by a call which changes the default socket timeout/blocking behaviour, e.g. socket.setdefaulttimeout(1) newsock = socket.connect(HOST, PORT, None) # <-- None param ignored newsock.setblocking(1) # <-- This does not affect the behaviour of the connect I.E. I do not get the blocking behaviour I want. The proposed API does not permit me to get blocking behaviour by specifying a timeout value of None. Whereas with the slightly modified API I suggested earlier, it simply becomes socket.setdefaulttimeout(1) newsock = socket.connect(HOST, PORT, timeout=None) # newsock.setblocking(1) # <-- No longer relevant Regards, Alan. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
