On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:25:34 +0100 "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > Am 19.11.13 20:59, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: > > That's integrated to the built-in buffering. It's not really an > > additional constraint: the frame sizes simply dictate how buffering > > happens in practice. The main point of framing is to *simplify* the > > buffering logic (of course, the old buffering logic is still there for > > protocols <= 3, unfortunately). > > I wonder why this needs to be part of the pickle protocol at all, > if it really is "below" the opcodes. Anybody desiring framing could > just implement a framing version of the io.BufferedReader, which > could be used on top of a socket connection (say) to allow fetching > larger blocks from the network stack. This would then be transparent > to the pickle implementation; the framing reader would, of course, > provide the peek() operation to allow the unpickler to continue to use > buffering. > > Such a framing BufferedReader might even be included in the standard > library.
Well, unless you propose a patch before Saturday, I will happily ignore your proposal. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
