"James Harris" <james.harri...@gmail.com> writes: > I guess there have been many attempts to make socket IO easier to > handle and a good number of those have been in Python. > > The trouble with trying to improve something which is already well > designed (and conciously left as is) is that the so-called improvement > can become much more complex and overly elaborate. That can apply to > the initial idea, for sure, but when writing helper or convenience > functions perhaps it applies more to the temptation to keep adding > just a little bit extra. The end result can be overly elaborate such > as a framework which is fine where such is needed but is overkill for > simpler requirements. > > Do you guys have any recommendations of some *lightweight* additions > to Python socket IO before I write any more of my own? Something built > in to Python would be much preferred over any modules which have to be > added. I had in the back of my mind that there was a high-level > socket-IO library - much as threading was added as a wrapper to the > basic thread module - but I cannot find anything above socket. Is > there any?
Does ØMQ qualify as lightweight? > A current specific to illustrate where basic socket IO is limited: it > normally provides no guarantees over how many bytes are transferred at > a time (AFAICS that's true for both streams and datagrams) so the > delimiting of messages/records needs to be handled by the sender and > receiver. I do already handle some of this myself but I wondered if > there was a prebuilt solution that I should be using instead - to save > me adding just a little bit extra. ;-) There are already convenience functions in stdlib such as sock.sendall(), sock.sendfile(), socket.create_connection() in addition to BSD Sockets API. If you want to extend this list and have specific suggestions; see https://docs.python.org/devguide/stdlibchanges.html Or just describe your current specific issue in more detail here. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list