Change by pfreixes :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +7095
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue30861>
___
___
Python-
pfreixes <pfrei...@gmail.com> added the comment:
Yeps, any update on this bug and the fix proposed?
--
___
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python
pfreixes <pfrei...@gmail.com> added the comment:
You are right, having the `pop` after the `set` it would remove the key from
the events. Despite the workaround that you proposes is quite clean, it is
kinda implicit.
The nature of the `pending` method is to give to the developer
pfreixes <pfrei...@gmail.com> added the comment:
Not really, your code never removes the key from the events. If the cache is
cleaned all further executions will keep forever in the `wait` statement. It is
needed to create the Event again to perform at least one query to retrieve the
pfreixes added the comment:
More info about why here
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/1824#issuecomment-315903808
--
resolution: -> rejected
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.pytho
pfreixes added the comment:
The Java client
https://gist.github.com/pfreixes/13fedf2a589c260e6c7c64ae73653bb1
Works as is expected the buffer can be read till it gets empty, no matter when
the RST was sent.
--
___
Python tracker <
pfreixes added the comment:
The following links point to three different implementations of the same
scenario using a Twisted, Node and Python blocking clients that try to
reproduce the same scenario.
- Twisted https://gist.github.com/pfreixes/0d8b24b98567e557d6059b3308aa07ca
- Node https
pfreixes added the comment:
fair enough. I'm out with few chances to grab a computer. I'll be back in
a week with more information.
El 07/07/2017 20:14, "Yury Selivanov" <rep...@bugs.python.org> escribió:
>
> Yury Selivanov added the comment:
>
> I looked
pfreixes added the comment:
I would like to focus the issue as was initially described, Im still
convinced that this is a buggy behaviour. As has been seen other systems
such as python sync or nodejs behaves as is expected.
This last one is IMHO something that can be skipped.
Im wondering how
pfreixes added the comment:
I think that we are not in the same page, the following snippet is a nodejs
client that emulates the same:
var net = require('net');
var sleep = require('sleep');
var client = new net.Socket();
client.connect(6379, '127.0.0.1', function() {
console.log
pfreixes added the comment:
As was said, the assumption here is the data that came to the buffer must be
available.
For example, the next snippet shows a Redis client that expects the data
message plus the RST packet, where the redis-server was configured to accept
max N connections
pfreixes added the comment:
One of the disadvantages with the Exception is that you are relying on
how the events are being succeeded, and this is something that you
can't predict. With just a different delay between the data and the
RST packet and you might get the data in two different ways
pfreixes added the comment:
Yeps,
I have an example related to Redis [1], the server warns that the
connection will be closed because you reached out the maximum number
of connections.
But IMHO the example it's just that an example, if the connection at
some point was not broken/closed
Changes by pfreixes <pfrei...@gmail.com>:
--
pull_requests: +2664
___
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue30861>
___
__
New submission from pfreixes:
Current implementation of StreamReader does not take care of the status of the
buffer, once an exception has been set via `set_exception` any call to the read
methods won't be able to get the missing data still pending to be processed.
>From the point of v
Changes by pfreixes <pfrei...@gmail.com>:
--
pull_requests: +1911
___
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue30490>
___
__
New submission from pfreixes:
Having the Event as the way to synchronize 1:N coroutines, the none happy path
should be able to be expressed making possible call the `set_exception` for
each future related to each waiter.
As an example the following code trying to implement a way to avoid
Changes by pfreixes <pfrei...@gmail.com>:
--
pull_requests: +1868
___
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue30457>
___
__
New submission from pfreixes:
Currently, there is no way to access to the number of waiters pending to be
woken up. This information can be useful for those environments which create
and delete asyncio primitives instances depending if there are waiters still to
be processed.
The following
19 matches
Mail list logo
