Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Irmen de Jong wrote:
>
>> I've looked at one bug and a bunch of patches and
>> added a comment to them:
>
>
> Thanks! I have now processed the ones for which I found guidance.
Thank you
> As for the remaining ones:
>
>> [ 756021 ] Allow socket.inet_aton('255.255.255.255') on Windows
>> Looks good but added suggestion about when to test for special case
>
>
> So what to do about this? Wait whether he revises the patch?
> Accept anyway? Update the patch myself?
I think I will revise the patch myself.
I was just waiting for some more input, but
since nobody replied, I'll just go ahead with it.
>> [ 1103350 ] send/recv SEGMENT_SIZE should be used more in socketmodule
>
>
> So what do you propose to do? AFAICT, there is no definition of
> SEGMENT_SIZE in a TCP implementation, and I think we should not try
> to make up a value.
Well, for the VMS platform a value has been made up...
Why make an exception for that one and not for Win32?
> IMO, Python should expose sockets more or less "as-is". If the system
> has a flaw, Python should expose it instead of working around it.
Is this the default way of treating system flaws, or should
they be considered on a per-case basis? I can imagine that
some system flaws are just plain stupid and are easy to
hide (or circumvent) in the Python implementation.
The recv/send segment size issue can have nasty results
on Win32, see the referenced bug report 853507
"socket.recv() raises MemoryError exception" which I think
is related to this.
(yes, I know that Tim marked that bug as wontfix)
Note: I'm not too experienced with Win32 programming and so I
don't have a very good argumentation for the buffer size issue
on this platform. If there is somebody with better understanding
of the issues involved here, please advise.
(it's just empirical knowledge that I have that leads me to
believe that win32's tcp implementation suffers from similar
recv/send size problems as VMS does-- for which a special
case was made in the code)
>> [ 1062014 ] fix for 764437 AF_UNIX socket special linux socket names
>
>
> Can you please elaborate the problem? What is a "special linux socket
> name"?
See bug report 764437. AF_UNIX sockets on Linux can have so-called
'kernel' socket names that don't show up in the filesystem (regular
unix domain sockets do). The current socketmodule doesn't treat
this special kind of unix domain sockets well.
This fix was submitted during the last python bug day you can
find some more info here too: http://www.python.org/moin/PythonBugDayStatus
> Regardless, the comment of the other reviewer is also valid: any patch
> needs documentation and test cases.
Yes, Johannes is right. I should have made docs and test cases
but didn't get around to doing that yet.
When my home network is fixed (router failure) I'll try to spend
some time improving the patches.
Regards
Irmen de Jong
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
