I‘d really like to get this stuff in. The performance gains allowing
http1.1 and gzip for xmlrpc are quite significant.
I think you really need to get Fredrik Lundh to comment on it. If he
can't predict when he'll be able to review the changes, maybe he can
accept releasing control of
2009/6/20 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
I‘d really like to get this stuff in. The performance gains allowing
http1.1 and gzip for xmlrpc are quite significant.
I think you really need to get Fredrik Lundh to comment on it. If he
can't predict when he'll be able to review the changes,
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
I think you really need to get Fredrik Lundh to comment on it. If he
can't predict when he'll be able to review the changes, maybe he can
accept releasing control of xmlrpclib.
Pointer to the patch?
http://bugs.python.org/issue6267
While I have your attention, please
On 19 Jun, 09:08 pm, benja...@python.org wrote:
2009/6/19 gl...@divmod.com:
On 02:09 pm, benja...@python.org wrote:
2009/6/19 �gl...@divmod.com:
�What about side-effects, or exceptional conditions? �What about
interactions with subclasses? (Changing a class in a library from
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Benjamin Petersonbenja...@python.org wrote:
[snip]
Backwards Compatibility Rules
=
This policy applys to all public APIs. These include the C-API, the standard
library, and the core language including syntax and operation as
gl...@divmod.com wrote:
On 07:06 pm, pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
Not sure why we need yet another pep on the subject. Just update PEP
5 if needed.
I agree. The draft covers the same ground. Two PEPs on the same subject
would be redundant where they agree but would create confusion where
they
Lucas P Melo wrote:
Am I understanding this correctly:
* The blocking version would not do any raw reads.
No, the blocking version would keep doing raw reads
until the buffer contains enough bytes.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
