[python-tulip] Re: Weak UDP support in asyncio

2015-02-26 Thread Antoine Pitrou
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:52:52 +0100 Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-26 16:49 GMT+01:00 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net: What is your use case? See the code at the end of my message: while True: data, addr = sock.recvfrom() ... I expect a similar

[python-tulip] Re: Weak UDP support in asyncio

2015-02-26 Thread Antoine Pitrou
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:37:34 +0100 Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote: I see different options to write sequential UDP code: The thing is, sequential UDP code doesn't really mean anything... What is your use case? - add stream classes like asyncio.open_connection() for TCP (may

Re: [python-tulip] Re: Weak UDP support in asyncio

2015-02-26 Thread Victor Stinner
2015-02-26 16:49 GMT+01:00 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net: What is your use case? See the code at the end of my message: while True: data, addr = sock.recvfrom() ... I expect a similar syntax using asyncio: while True: data, addr = yield from sock.recvfrom() ... Victor

Re: [python-tulip] Re: Weak UDP support in asyncio

2015-02-26 Thread Guido van Rossum
I didn't follow all of that, but sendto() exists on the selector loop. You should ignore errors from it, since it's just as likely that the kernel accepts the packet (so sendto() succeeds) but some other layer or router drops it. There's absolutely no point in buffering and retrying based on the