Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It's unlikely to be granted. ... The Python call just wraps the
> system call which has a similar API.
What about letting it accept both?
Maintaining strict consistency with the C API here
at the cost of causing pain on almost all uses of
the function seems to be a cas
Georg Brandl wrote:
> There are others who can judge the new API and implementation better than
> me, but I can review the formal issues as soon as the API is accepted.
The API is accepted now, I proposed it and Guido say ok 24hs ago, ;)
I'll update the patch to that API, and let you know throug
[Alan]
>> - Explicitly check that the address passed is a tuple of (string, integer)
[Facundo]
> In the code, I'll just make "host, port = address", I don't think it
> will be a problem at all. Remember that this function primary use is for
> higher level libraries, and that "address" in socket en
On 3/22/07, Alan Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Alan]
> >> - Explicitly check that the address passed is a tuple of (string, integer)
>
> [Facundo]
> > In the code, I'll just make "host, port = address", I don't think it
> > will be a problem at all. Remember that this function primary use i
Facundo Batista schrieb:
> I updated the patch #1676823, reflecting discussion here:
>
> - The function name changed, now it's _create_connection(). Its
> signature also changed: now, timeout is mandatorily named.
>
> - HTTPConnection has the posibility to call timeout with a number, and
> also
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> def connect(address, **kwargs):
> [snip]
> if kwargs.has_key('timeout'):
> sock.settimeout(kwargs['timeout'])
> [snip]
A problem with interfaces like this is that it makes
it awkward to pass on a value that you received from
higher up.
An
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> - Explicitly check that the address passed is a tuple of (string, integer)
It's more probable that a use pass a list of two values, that a host of
two letters as you suggested above...
> - To raise an exception explaining the parameter expectation when it is not
> met
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> So is that address = host, port = 80?
>
> Or is it address = (host, port), timeout=80?
The latter, as is in the rest of Python...
See your point, you say it's less error prone to make timeout mandatory.
I really don't care, so I'll take your advice...
--
. Facundo
.
Bl
[Josiah]
> Error-wise, I agree that it would be better to pass timeout explicitly
> with a keyword, but generally users will notice their mistake if they
> try to do create_connection(host, port) by ValueError("tuple expected as
> first argument, got str instead") Is it better than
> TypeError("cre
Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Kennedy wrote:
> > The standard mechanism in C for doing a non-blocking connect is to
> > issue the connect call, and check the return value for a non-zero
> > error code. If this error code is errno.EAGAIN (code 10035), then the
> > call succeeded, but
"Alan Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Facundo]
> > Letting "timeout" be positional or named, it's just less error prone.
> > So, if I can make it this way, it's what I prefer, :)
>
> So, if I want a timeout of, say, 80 seconds, I issue a call like this
>
> new_socket = socket.create_co
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> The standard mechanism in C for doing a non-blocking connect is to
> issue the connect call, and check the return value for a non-zero
> error code. If this error code is errno.EAGAIN (code 10035), then the
> call succeeded, but you should check back later for completion of t
[Facundo]
> Letting "timeout" be positional or named, it's just less error prone.
> So, if I can make it this way, it's what I prefer, :)
So, if I want a timeout of, say, 80 seconds, I issue a call like this
new_socket = socket.create_connection(address, 80)
So is that address = host, port = 80?
[Josiah]
> But now the result could be either an error code OR a socket. One of
> the reasons to provide a timeout for the create_connection call, if I
> understand correctly, is to handle cases for which you don't get a
> response back in sufficient time.
AFAICT, that's the only reason. It's not
"Alan Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> def create_connection(address, timeout=sentinel):
> [snip]
> if timeout != sentinel:
>new_socket.settimeout(timeout)
> if new_socket.gettimeout() == 0:
>result = new_socket.connect_ex(address)
> else:
>new_
[Facundo]
> So, I have two modifications to make to the patch:
>
> - change the name to "create_connection"
> - make timeout obligatory named
I was going to suggest a third change: for orthogonality with the API
for socket objects, add a blocking parameter as well, i.e.
def create_connection(addr
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> restrict what the user could pass as a value to timeout. It requires
> that you pass timeout explicitly, but that's a (relatively
> inconsequential) API decision.
This is exactly the point. It's an API decision, that you must
communicate to the user, he/she must read it a
Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > sentinel = object()
> >
> > def connect(HOST, PORT, timeout=sentinel):
> > ...
> > if timeout is not sentinel:
> > sock.settimeout(timeout)
> > ...
> >
> > A keyword argument via **kwargs is also fine. I ha
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> sentinel = object()
>
> def connect(HOST, PORT, timeout=sentinel):
> ...
> if timeout is not sentinel:
> sock.settimeout(timeout)
> ...
>
> A keyword argument via **kwargs is also fine. I have no preference.
I do. The way you showed here, I'm not restr
Steven Bethard wrote:
> is supposed to be a timeout. The modified version::
>
> newsock = socket.create_connection(HOST, PORT, timeout=None)
Warning. The correct function signature is
create_connection(address[, timeout=None])
where address is a tuple (HOST, PORT).
BTW, how can I indic
"Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, I have two modifications to make to the patch:
> >
> > - change the name to "create_connection"
> > - make timeout obligatory named
> >
> > Is everybody ok with this?
>
> FWLIW, +1. It wa
On 3/20/07, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I have two modifications to make to the patch:
>
> - change the name to "create_connection"
> - make timeout obligatory named
>
> Is everybody ok with this?
FWLIW, +1. It was not immediately apparent to me that the third argument in::
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> [Facundo]
>> But, I recognize that maybe it's [connect] not the best name. What about
>> "create_connection"?
>
> I have no strong feelings about it, other than to say it should not be
> "connect". How about
Ok. "create_connection", then.
> Ah, but it's too late by the tim
[Facundo]
> But, I recognize that maybe it's [connect] not the best name. What about
> "create_connection"?
I have no strong feelings about it, other than to say it should not be
"connect". How about
* connect_to_server()
* open_connection()
* open_client_connection()
There's no need to inclu
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> Sorry, my mistake.
No problem.
> So, a question I would ask is: Is "connect" the right name for that function?
> ...
> Perhaps a better name might be "create_connected_client_socket", or
> something equally descriptive?
Guido proposed "connect_with_timeout". I don't like
[Alan Kennedy]
>> I see that your updated socket.connect() method takes a timeout
>> parameter, which defaults to None if not present, e.g.
[Facundo Batista]
> I did NOT update a connect() method. I created a connect() function, in
> the module socket.py (there's also a connect() method in the soc
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> I see that your updated socket.connect() method takes a timeout
> parameter, which defaults to None if not present, e.g.
I did NOT update a connect() method. I created a connect() function, in
the module socket.py (there's also a connect() method in the socket
object, but I
[Facundo Batista]
> Do you have any news about this?
Re: Patch 1676823
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1676823&group_id=5470&atid=305470
Since I've just written a lot of socket stuff for jython, I thought
I'd have a look at the patch.
I like the idea of adding better soc
On March 15, Georg Brandl wrote:
> I'll review it tomorrow.
Do you have any news about this?
Regards,
--
. Facundo
.
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http:/
I'll review it tomorrow.
Georg
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> I need to shed load; I've asked Georg to review this. If he's fine
> with it, Facundo can check it in.
>
> On 3/15/07, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Facundo Batista wrote:
>>
>> > I studied Skip patch, and I think he is i
I need to shed load; I've asked Georg to review this. If he's fine
with it, Facundo can check it in.
On 3/15/07, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Facundo Batista wrote:
>
> > I studied Skip patch, and I think he is in good direction: add a
> > NetworkConnection object to socket.py, and
Facundo Batista wrote:
> I studied Skip patch, and I think he is in good direction: add a
> NetworkConnection object to socket.py, and then use it from the other
> modules.
As of discussion in the patch tracker, this class is now a function in
socket.py.
This function connect() does the connect
32 matches
Mail list logo
