Donghyun Kim <ryan...@gmail.com> added the comment:
On May 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Charles-François Natali wrote:
> I don't know how I could miss this: closing the server socket is perfectly
> fine in TCP, since a new one is returned by accept(). But in UDP, it's
> definitely wrong, since it's used by the handler.
> I don't know however how I missed this, since I remember having run
> test_socketserver...
It's been a long time since the issue submitted, anyway, I was cursed to look
at only TCP too :-)
I agree that ForkingUDPServer should be supported in SocketServer.py.
(Although users should take care of socket locking for concurrent accesses)
How about using BaseServer(TCPServer).server_close() instead of
self.socket.close() in the patch?
As UDPServer has no server_close() method overridden, unlike ForkingTCPServer,
ForkingUDPServer seems to have no actual "server" in design.
So, I think we could say that
- closing TCP listen socket in child process = "server_close()" in child process
- nothing to do on UDP socket in child process = "server_close() but nothing
will be done in the method" (b/c BaseServer.server_close() does nothing)
What do you think?
-----
Donghyun Kim
http://www.uryan.net
----------
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file22098/unnamed
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue5715>
_______________________________________
<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 24, 2011,
at 12:44 PM, Charles-François Natali wrote:</div><br
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>I don't know how
I could miss this: closing the server socket is perfectly fine in TCP, since a
new one is returned by accept(). But in UDP, it's definitely wrong, since it's
used by the handler.<br>I don't know however how I missed this, since I
remember having run test_socketserver...<font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><br></div><div>It's been a
long time since the issue submitted, anyway, I was cursed to look at only TCP
too :-)<br><br>I agree that ForkingUDPServer should be supported in
SocketServer.py.<br>(Although users should take care of socket locking for
concurrent accesses)<br><br>How about using
BaseServer(TCPServer).server_close() instead of self.socket.close() in the
patch?<br><br>As UDPServer has no server_close() method overridden, unlike
ForkingTCPServer, ForkingUDPServer seems to have no actual "server" in
design.<br>So, I think we could say that <br>- closing TCP listen socket
in child process = "server_close()" in child process<br>- nothing to do on UDP
socket in child process = "server_close() but nothing will be done in the
method" (b/c BaseServer.server_close() does nothing)<br><br>What do you
think?</div><div><br></div><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0,
0, 0); font-family: 'Malgun Gothic'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size:
medium; ">-----<br>Donghyun Kim<br><a
href="http://www.uryan.net";>http://www.uryan.net</a></span>
</div>
<br></body></html>
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
