On 2/9/07, Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> wrote: > On Friday 09 February 2007 08:52, skip at pobox.com wrote: > > In principle it's probably a fine idea. We should consider if it's > > possible to develop a uniform approach to timeouts for all the libraries > > that use sockets though. Otherwise you run the risk of doing it in > > different ways for different libraries and having to make a (small, but > > annoying) semantic leap when going from, say, httplib to smtpllib or > > ftplib. > > Agreed. In the meanwhile, there's socket.setdefaulttimeout(), which has > proved quite useful. Didn't work for me, since my ap is a multi-threaded webserver and I only want one specific type of request to time out. I'm not going to change ftplib.py and all the others. I do think it's relevant to decide whether the timeout should be passed to the constructor or to the connect() method. I think it may be better to pass the timeout to the constructor. > -Fred > > -- > Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4