Re: there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()?
there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()? BTW socket.sendall() doesn't actually work for large amounts of data on Windows 2000 and probably other versions of Windows as well. Eg if you supply a 1MB buffer then you get an exception based on some internal Windows error code. I haven't experimented on Unix yet to see if it has the same issue. The workaround is to write a wrapper that really does send everything. Roger -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()?
Subject says it all; there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()? I know that I can use the MSG_WAITALL flag with recv(), but this is not implemented on all platforms, most notably windows. --Iremn -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RE: there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()?
Irmen de Jong wrote: Subject says it all; there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()? Good question! Something like: # Receive reply. data = [] while True: try: chunk = conn.recv(8192) except Exception, x: if x.args[0] != 10035: raise x else: if chunk == '': break data.append(chunk) If you call .makefile() and then .read() the _fileobject, you get the same behavior (only better). Adding recvall would just duplicate that, I think. But that's desirable IMO. Robert Brewer MIS Amor Ministries [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()?
Robert Brewer wrote: Irmen de Jong wrote: Subject says it all; there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()? [...] If you call .makefile() and then .read() the _fileobject, you get the same behavior (only better). Adding recvall would just duplicate that, I think. But that's desirable IMO. Hm, I didn't consider makefile(). But I'm not sure if that works in all cases. Until now, I've been using a loop rather like the one you posted. But, as I pointed out earlier, there is the MSG_WAITALL option on various platforms (Linux for instance). So instead of sticking it in an explicitly programmed loop in Python, or using an extension module such as this one: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-January/143051.html , I'd rather have a recvall method on the socket object that essentially uses MSG_WAITALL if available, and uses a loop construction if not. I may even write a patch for socketmodule.c right now :-D --Irmen de Jong -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
