Rafael Zanella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: >With the code as it stands, calls to shutdown that happen before >serve_forever enters its loop will deadlock, and there's no simple way >for the user to avoid this. The attached patch prevents the deadlock and >allows multiple serve_forever..shutdown cycles, but it's pretty >complicated. I could make it a lot simpler by making shutdown permanent: >any later serve_forever calls would return immediately.
Never thought of using the SocketServer taht way, wouldn't the person doing this bunch of shutdown()s and serve_forever()s be better off using handle_request() on a loop instead ? >A third choice would be to add a .serve_in_thread function that returns >a token that can be used to shut down exactly that loop, instead of >putting .shutdown() on the server. Any opinions? I don't think I understand this part, what loop do you refer to ? ---------- nosy: +zanella __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2302> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
