In message mailman.2769.1273327083.23598.python-l...@python.org,
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 07:48 am, l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message mailman.2760.1273288730.23598.python-l...@python.org,
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
This is a good example of why it's a bad
Am 09.05.2010 11:59, schrieb Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
In messagemailman.2769.1273327083.23598.python-l...@python.org,
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 07:48 am, l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In messagemailman.2760.1273288730.23598.python-l...@python.org,
exar...@twistedmatrix.com
In message mailman.2760.1273288730.23598.python-l...@python.org,
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
This is a good example of why it's a bad idea to use select on Windows.
Instead, use WaitForMultipleObjects.
How are you supposed to write portable code, then?
--
2010/5/7 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
Le Fri, 07 May 2010 21:55:15 +0200, Giampaolo Rodolà a écrit :
Of course, but 30 seconds look a little bit too much to me, also because
(I might be wrong here) I noticed that a smaller timeout seems to result
in better performances.
That's
On Sat, 8 May 2010 13:47:53 +0200
Giampaolo Rodolà g.rod...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming loop() function does something like this:
...
select.select(r, w, e, timeout)
scheduler() # checks for scheduled calls to be fired
...
...imagine a case where there's a connection
On 07:48 am, l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message mailman.2760.1273288730.23598.python-l...@python.org,
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
This is a good example of why it's a bad idea to use select on
Windows.
Instead, use WaitForMultipleObjects.
How are you supposed to write
On 11:47 am, g.rod...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/7 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
Le Fri, 07 May 2010 21:55:15 +0200, Giampaolo Rodol� a �crit�:
Of course, but 30 seconds look a little bit too much to me, also
because
(I might be wrong here) I noticed that a smaller timeout seems to
result
2010/5/8 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
On Sat, 8 May 2010 13:47:53 +0200
Giampaolo Rodolà g.rod...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming loop() function does something like this:
...
select.select(r, w, e, timeout)
scheduler() # checks for scheduled calls to be fired
...
On 6 May, 20:58, Thomas Heller thel...@ctypes.org wrote:
If you look at the source code for time.sleep(), which CAN be interrupted
by pressing Ctrl-C, you will find that it is carefully programmed to be
interruptible (sp?). Which is not the case for select.select(), obviously.
Thanks - given
You can easily avoid this by setting a lower timeout when calling
asyncore.loop(), like 1 second or less (for example, Twisted uses
0.001 secs).
Actually there's no reason for asyncore to have such a high default
timeout (30 seconds).
I think this should be signaled on the bug tracker.
---
Le Fri, 07 May 2010 16:36:44 +0200, Giampaolo Rodolà a écrit :
You can easily avoid this by setting a lower timeout when calling
asyncore.loop(), like 1 second or less (for example, Twisted uses 0.001
secs).
Actually there's no reason for asyncore to have such a high default
timeout (30
On 7 May 2010 15:36, Giampaolo Rodolà g.rod...@gmail.com wrote:
You can easily avoid this by setting a lower timeout when calling
asyncore.loop(), like 1 second or less (for example, Twisted uses
0.001 secs).
Thanks, that's what I was considering.
Actually there's no reason for asyncore to
2010/5/7 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
Le Fri, 07 May 2010 16:36:44 +0200, Giampaolo Rodolà a écrit :
You can easily avoid this by setting a lower timeout when calling
asyncore.loop(), like 1 second or less (for example, Twisted uses 0.001
secs).
Actually there's no reason for asyncore
Le Fri, 07 May 2010 21:55:15 +0200, Giampaolo Rodolà a écrit :
Of course, but 30 seconds look a little bit too much to me, also because
(I might be wrong here) I noticed that a smaller timeout seems to result
in better performances.
That's probably bogus.
Plus, if scheduled callbacks are
On 7 May, 07:25 pm, p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 May 2010 15:36, Giampaolo Rodol� g.rod...@gmail.com wrote:
You can easily avoid this by setting a lower timeout when calling
asyncore.loop(), like 1 second or less (for example, Twisted uses
0.001 secs).
Thanks, that's what I was
Paul Moore schrieb:
From a quick experiment, it seems that select.select with a timeout
doesn't react to a keyboard interrupt until the timeout expires.
Specifically, if I do
s = socket.socket()
select.select([s], [], [], 30)
and then press Ctrl-C, Python waits for the 30 seconds before
16 matches
Mail list logo
