Bill Janssen wrote:
The HTTP client-side library calls "makefile" on the socket, then
closes it, then passes the file returned from "makefile" on to
application code to work with.
Seems to me we really need two different APIs for
doing a makefile()-like operation, depending on
whether you're e
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 03:29:33PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
> > This would be a good chance for Py3K to dump httplib/urllib/urllib2
> > and use some more modern library.
>
> Which modern library do you propose?
I have no idea -- presumably we'd need to compare a bunch of them
(curl, libwget
2008/5/7, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This would be a good chance for Py3K to dump httplib/urllib/urllib2
> and use some more modern library.
Which modern library do you propose?
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Bill Janssen wrote:
> This particular nasty pattern is deeply entwined in all the code that
> touches the HTTP library in any way, so it will be a big job to get
> rid of it -- basically re-writing HTTP support and all the services
> which use it. I didn't
See http://bugs.python.org/issue1348.
Bill
___
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
> I would be okay with changing the requirements in Py3k so that you are
> required to keep the socket object open at least as long as you plan
> on using the derived stream(s), but this will require some careful
> redesign, especially in the light of SSL support. (Read ssl.py and
> _ssl.c to under
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Sjoerd Mullender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-05-07 13:37, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > 2008/5/7 Sjoerd Mullender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Why does sock.close() not actually close sock?
> > >
> > > If I run the code
> > >
> > > imp
Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
> On 2008-05-07 13:37, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc wrote:
> > 2008/5/7 Sjoerd Mullender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> I would expect that a system call is done to actually close the
> >> socket and free the file descriptor. But that does not happen.
> >
> > It does close the socket:
>
On 2008-05-07 13:37, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc wrote:
Hello,
2008/5/7 Sjoerd Mullender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Why does sock.close() not actually close sock?
If I run the code
import socket
sock = socket.socket()
...
sock.close()
I would expect that a system call is done to actually close the
Hello,
2008/5/7 Sjoerd Mullender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why does sock.close() not actually close sock?
>
> If I run the code
>
> import socket
> sock = socket.socket()
> ...
> sock.close()
>
> I would expect that a system call is done to actually close the socket and
> free the file descript
Why does sock.close() not actually close sock?
If I run the code
import socket
sock = socket.socket()
...
sock.close()
I would expect that a system call is done to actually close the socket
and free the file descriptor. But that does not happen. Look at the
code in socket.py. It merely rep
11 matches
Mail list logo
