On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 16:53 +0100, Damien Baty wrote: > Le 13/02/12 15:53, Chris McDonough a écrit : > > On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 15:50 +0100, Damien Baty wrote: > >> Le 13/02/12 15:45, Chris McDonough a écrit : > >>> On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 15:00 +0100, Damien Baty wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> this behaviour is due to "HTTPChannel.task_lock" being shared > >>>> between all channels. But perhaps all this is intended. Or I am > >>>> missing something. > >>> > >>> You're right. I'll try to diagnose and fix this later. I *think* the > >>> fix might just be to move the task lock constructor to the Channel > >>> __init__ but not 100% sure. Thanks a lot for the succinct description > >>> and test program. > >> > >> I did try that and all tests passed, but I was not sure whether this has > >> negative side effects. Also, I did not try to write tests for the new > >> behaviour. I could give a try if you wish and do not beat me to it! > > > > I think both task_lock and outbuf_lock could be moved to the constructor > > without ill effect. I've done that and it does fix the issue, but > > obviously need to create some tests for it to make sure it doesn't break > > anything. 2-second fix, four hours writing tests. ;-) > > I went ahead and wrote a test > (https://github.com/Pylons/waitress/pull/1). There may be a cleaner way > but at least it exhibits the bug (and shows that the proposed correction > fixes it).
I actually committed a change in the meantime that's very similar. Thanks! - C > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
