[Python-Dev] I vote to reject: Adding timeout to socket.py and httplib.py. (original) (raw)
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Wed Mar 21 18:14:36 CET 2007
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] I vote to reject: Adding timeout to socket.py and httplib.py.
- Next message: [Python-Dev] I vote to reject: Adding timeout to socket.py and httplib.py.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 3/21/07, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard at gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/21/07, Facundo Batista <facundo at taniquetil.com.ar> wrote: > So, as a resume of the choices we still need to settle: > > a) Repeat the same functionality in 5 other libraries > b) Write the function in socket.py, public > c) Write the function in socket.py, non public
The fact that it's needed in 5 places in the stdlib suggests that there's plenty of user code that could benefit from it too. Hence, I prefer (b), but if that really freaks people out, I'm okay with (c) too. I'm not okay with (a).
I agree with the reasoning leading to choice (b) as optimal.
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] I vote to reject: Adding timeout to socket.py and httplib.py.
- Next message: [Python-Dev] I vote to reject: Adding timeout to socket.py and httplib.py.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]