I've created http://bugs.python.org/issue4448 to track this issue.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Kristján Valur Jónsson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I came across this in socket.c: > > # _rbufsize is the suggested recv buffer size. It is *strictly* > > # obeyed within readline() for recv calls. If it is larger than > > # default_bufsize it will be used for recv calls within read(). > > > > What I worry about is the readline() case. Is there a reason why we want > to strictly obey it for that function? Note that in the documentation for > _fileobject.read() it says: > > # Use max, disallow tiny reads in a loop as they are very > inefficient. > > > > The same argument surely applies for readline(). > > > > The reason I am fretting about this is that httplib.py (and therefore > xmlrpclib.py) specify bufsize=0 when createing their socket fileobjects, > presumably to make sure that write() operations are not buffered but flushed > immediately. But this has the side effect of setting the _rbufsize to 1, > and so readline() calls become very slow. > > > > I suggest that readline() be made to use at least defaultbufsize, like > read(). Any thoughts? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Kristján > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/greg%40krypto.org > >
_______________________________________________ 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
