(original) (raw)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:26:16 +0000I don't really think the ability to "create magic stackless mixin
Kristj�n Valur J�nsson <kristjan@ccpgames.com> 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 ThreadingMixIn, and assuming we had the appropriate socket
> replacement library, be able to use it nicely using tasklets.
classes" should be a driving principle for the stdlib.
But not needlessly duplicating functionality already elsewhere in the stdlib probably ought to be. �;-)
�
> So, my first question is: �Why not simply rely on the already built-in timeoutIn case you didn't notice, the built-in timeout support \*also\* uses
> support in the socket module?
select().
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. �If SocketServer uses only the socket module's API, then those frameworks will be told about the timeout via the socket API, and can then implement it their own way.