[issue12460] SocketServer.shutdown() does not have "timeout=None" parameter

2015-11-29 Thread Martin Panter
Martin Panter added the comment: Closing as retracted by original reporter. (Also, I wonder how useful the timeout would be. Adding a timeout isn’t going to fix a hanging server.) -- nosy: +martin.panter resolution: -> rejected stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed _

[issue12460] SocketServer.shutdown() does not have "timeout=None" parameter

2015-11-29 Thread Марк Коренберг
Марк Коренберг added the comment: Please close this bug since asyncio is much more suitable, and things like socketserver is obsolete as I think. -- ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue12460] SocketServer.shutdown() does not have "timeout=None" parameter

2011-07-01 Thread Santoso Wijaya
Changes by Santoso Wijaya : -- nosy: +santa4nt ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pyth

[issue12460] SocketServer.shutdown() does not have "timeout=None" parameter

2011-07-01 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray added the comment: Well, it's not applicable to 2.x, since it is a feature request. As such it could only go into 3.3. I don't have an opinion on the merits of the suggestion. -- nosy: +r.david.murray versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 2.6, Python 2.7 ___

[issue12460] SocketServer.shutdown() does not have "timeout=None" parameter

2011-07-01 Thread Giampaolo Rodola'
Changes by Giampaolo Rodola' : -- nosy: +giampaolo.rodola ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http:

[issue12460] SocketServer.shutdown() does not have "timeout=None" parameter

2011-07-01 Thread Марк Коренберг
New submission from Марк Коренберг : Suppose i'm trying to correctly terminate thread with socketserver during application termination. I do not want to wait too long (also do not want to hang), I want to protect against long-lived operations in SimpleServer so something like myserver.shutdow