On 13 Mag, 22:16, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:50:30 -0700 (PDT), Giampaolo Rodola' <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 13 Mag, 17:59, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> We do not live in a pure world, Python isn't pure (practicality beats > >> purity), and by attempting to send some data each time a .push*() > >> method is called, there are measurable increases in transfer rates. > > >Good point. I'd like to ask a question: if we'd have a default > >asyncore.loop timeout of (say) 0.01 ms instead of 30 could we avoid > >such problem? > >I've always found weird that asyncore has such an high default timeout > >value. > >Twisted, for example, uses a default of 0.01 ms for all its reactors. > > I'm not sure this is right. What timeout are we talking about? Twisted > only wakes up when necessary. > > Jean-Paul
I'm talking about the asyncore.loop timeout parameter which defaults to 30 (seconds). I don't think that Twisted only wakes up when necessary (surely not by using the select reactor). Think about the schedule calls feature (reactor.callLater). To have that work I guess that a continuous loop must always be kept alive, regardless of the reactor used. --- Giampaolo http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
