On 14 Mag, 02:56, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why? Isn't this why subtraction exists? If there is a call scheduled to > happen at T1 and the current time is T2, then I know that after (T1 - T2) > elapses, it will be time to run the call. Why do I have to do any checks > at all? I just tell select() to wait that long. Presumably this is just > what someone will do if they want to use asyncore with timed calls. Call > asyncore.loop() in a loop, always passing (T1 - T2) as the timeout value.
That doesn't work if I decide to schedule one or more calls AFTER the loop has started (see: "I already told select what timeout use"). As far as I've understood by reading the Twisted core what happens is that there's a heap of scheduled calls and a loop that keeps calling time.time() to check the scheduled functions due to expire soonest. I've also proposed a patch for asyncore using the same approach: http://bugs.python.org/issue1641 > So, actually, I'm not sure what the disagreement is about. ;) The current disagreement is about how Twisted timed events are implemented. :) > On the other hand, I didn't > this thread (or maybe just this part of the thread) start out with > a question about asyncore throughput? I have no idea what that > might have to do with this. Nothing, we just finished OT. :) --- Giampaolo http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
