-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] SocketServer issues
Yes, setting a timeout and leaving it that way is not the same. But setting
the timeout for _accept only_ is the "same" except one approach requires the
check of a bool return, the other the handling of a socket.timeout ex
on. Thanks.
K
-Original Message-
From: gvanros...@gmail.com [mailto:gvanros...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Guido van
Rossum
Sent: 14. mars 2012 11:44
To: Kristján Valur Jónsson
Cc: Antoine Pitrou; python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] SocketServer issues
2012/3/14 Kristján Valur Jónsson :
>
2012/3/14 Kristján Valur Jónsson :
> Maybe this is all just nonsense, still it seems odd to jump through extra
> hoops to emulate a functionality that is already supported by the socket
> spec, and can be done in the most appropriate way for each implementation.
I thought I had already explained
ython-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org] On Behalf Of
Antoine Pitrou
Sent: 14. mars 2012 10:23
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] SocketServer issues
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:59:47 +
Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
>
> It just seems odd to me that it was designed
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:59:47 +
Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
>
> It just seems odd to me that it was designed to use the "select" api to do
> timeouts, > where timeouts are already part of the socket protocol and can be
> implemented more
> efficiently there.
How is it more efficient if it
review.
K
-Original Message-
From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org
[mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org] On Behalf Of
Antoine Pitrou
Sent: 14. mars 2012 02:02
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] SocketServer issues
On Wed, 14 Mar 2
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:17:06 -0400
> PJ Eby wrote:
> > That's not really the point; the frameworks that implement nonblocking
> I/O
> > by replacing the socket module (and Stackless is only one of many) won't
> be
> > using that code.
>
>
2012/3/13 Kristján Valur Jónsson :
> I want to mention some issues I‘ve had with the socketserver module, and
> discuss if there‘s a way to make it nicer.
>
> So, for a long time we were able to create magic stackless mixin classes for
> it, like ThreadingMixIn, and assuming we had the appropriate
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:17:06 -0400
PJ Eby wrote:
>
> > So, my first question is: Why not simply rely on the already built-in
> > timeout
> > > support in the socket module?
> >
> > In case you didn't notice, the built-in timeout support *also* uses
> > select().
> >
>
> That's not really the po
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:27:08 -0700
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Hopefully it doesn't use select if no timeout is set...
No, it doesn't :-)
Regards
Antoine.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-d
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:26:16 +
> Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
> > Hi there.
> > I want to mention some issues I've had with the socketserver module, and
> discuss if there's a way to make it nicer.
> > So, for a long time we were able
Hopefully it doesn't use select if no timeout is set...
--Guido van Rossum (sent from Android phone)
On Mar 14, 2012 2:08 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:26:16 +
> Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
> > Hi there.
> > I want to mention some issues I've had with the socketserv
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:26:16 +
Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
> Hi there.
> I want to mention some issues I've had with the socketserver module, and
> discuss if there's a way to make it nicer.
> So, for a long time we were able to create magic stackless mixin classes for
> it, like ThreadingM
Hi there.
I want to mention some issues I've had with the socketserver module, and
discuss if there's a way to make it nicer.
So, for a long time we were able to create magic stackless mixin classes for
it, like ThreadingMixIn, and assuming we had the appropriate socket replacement
library, be a
14 matches
Mail list logo
