On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:05:07 +0100 "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > Am 19.11.13 21:28, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: > > > Well, unless you propose a patch before Saturday, I will happily ignore > > your proposal. > > See > > http://bugs.python.org/file32709/framing.diff
Ok, thanks. So now that I look at the patch I see the following problems with this idea: - "pickle + framing" becomes a different protocol than "pickle" alone, which means we lose the benefit of protocol autodetection. It's as though pickle.load() required you to give the protocol number, instead of inferring it from the pickle bytestream. - it is less efficient than framing built inside pickle, since it adds separate buffers and memory copies (while the point of framing is to make buffering more efficient). Your idea is morally similar to saying "we don't need to optimize the size of pickles, since you can gzip them anyway". However, the fact that the _pickle module currently goes to lengths to try to optimize buffering, implies to me that it's reasonable to also improve the pickle protocol so as to optimize buffering. 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
