[issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?

2009-02-10 Thread Kristján Valur Jónsson
Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com added the comment: Issue 4879 has been resolved so that that HTTPResponse invokes socket.socket.makefile() with default buffering. see r69209. Since the problem stated in this defect has no bearing on 3.0 (there is no special hack for readline()

[issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?

2009-02-02 Thread Kristján Valur Jónsson
Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com added the comment: I have looked at this for py3k. the behaviour of HTTPResponse.fp.read() is the same, wheter fp is buffered or not: a read() will read to EOF for HTTP/1.1, which means blocking indefinetely. So, read() is forbidden for HTTP/1.1.

[issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?

2009-01-31 Thread Gregory P. Smith
Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org added the comment: unassigning, i don't have time to look at this one right now. -- assignee: gregory.p.smith - ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4448

[issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?

2009-01-19 Thread Kristján Valur Jónsson
Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com added the comment: Hi, I'm reawakening this because http://bugs.python.org/issue4879 needs to be ported to py3k. In py3k, a socket.fileobject() is still created with bufsize(0), although now the reasoning is different: def __init__(self, sock,

[issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?

2009-01-19 Thread Gabriel Genellina
Changes by Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar: -- nosy: +gagenellina ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4448 ___ ___

[issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?

2008-11-28 Thread Kristján Valur Jónsson
Kristján Valur Jónsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: If you look at http://bugs.python.org/issue4336, half of the proposed patch is an attempt to deal with this performance issue. In the patch, we laboriously ensure that bufsize=-1 is passed in for for the xmlrpc client. Seeing your

[issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?

2008-11-28 Thread Guido van Rossum
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I'm fine with disabling this feature in xmlrpclib.py, and possibly even in httplib.py. I'm *not* fine with fixing this behavior in socket.py -- the unittest coverage is unfortunately small and we have had plenty of trouble in this area in

[issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?

2008-11-27 Thread Gregory P. Smith
New submission from Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From Kristján Valur Jónsson (kristjan at ccpgames.com) on python-dev: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-November/083724.html I came across this in socket.c: # _rbufsize is the suggested recv buffer size.

[issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?

2008-11-27 Thread Guido van Rossum
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: You meant socket.py. This is an extremely subtle area. I would be very wary of changing this -- there is a use case where headers are read from the socket using readline() but the rest of the data is read directly from the socket, and this