2015-08-10 19:23 GMT+02:00 Aymeric Augustin
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org:
Hello Guido,
On 10 août 2015, at 15:32, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Folks, can we stop the testy interaction?
Oops — sorry about that.
I'm also sorry, to reread my e-mail after 10 days, it was
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Aymeric Augustin
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org wrote:
Hello Guido,
On 10 août 2015, at 15:32, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Folks, can we stop the testy interaction?
Oops — sorry about that.
I'm personally confused how a protocol can
On 11 août 2015, at 18:12, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Hm... The way I read that it seems to say that you shouldn't just close the
socket if the last thing you did was send some data and you'd like to be sure
it was received. I can't disagree with that (SSL has a similar idea
Hello Guido,
On 10 août 2015, at 15:32, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Folks, can we stop the testy interaction?
Oops — sorry about that.
I'm personally confused how a protocol can require any kind of exchange on
shutdown.
Indeed, even if a protocol recommends an exchange on
2015-08-10 14:59 GMT+02:00 Aymeric Augustin
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org:
On 10 août 2015, at 11:38, Ludovic Gasc gml...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know all implementation details, however, we use on production for
several daemons this implementation:
Hello,
I’m maintaining a library for building websocket servers (mainly). Before
shutting down, the server should perform a closing handshake on open
connections. I assume many other protocols with long-lived connections have
similar requirements.
The most natural solution would to inherit
