RetroSearch Browse

Thu Nov 27 21:58:31 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-November/083734.html

I've created http://bugs.python.org/issue4448 to track this issue.

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Kristján Valur Jónsson <
kristjan at ccpgames.com> wrote:

>  I came across this in socket.c:
>
>         # _rbufsize is the suggested recv buffer size.  It is *strictly*
>
>         # obeyed within readline() for recv calls.  If it is larger than
>
>         # default_bufsize it will be used for recv calls within read().
>
>
>
> What I worry about is the readline() case.  Is there a reason why we want
> to strictly obey it for that function?  Note that in the documentation for
> _fileobject.read() it says:
>
>         # Use max, disallow tiny reads in a loop as they are very
> inefficient.
>
>
>
> The same argument surely applies for readline().
>
>
>
> The reason I am fretting about this is that httplib.py (and therefore
> xmlrpclib.py) specify bufsize=0 when createing their socket fileobjects,
> presumably to make sure that write() operations are not buffered but flushed
> immediately.  But this has the side effect of setting the _rbufsize to 1,
> and so readline() calls become very slow.
>
>
>
> I suggest that readline() be made to use at least defaultbufsize, like
> read().  Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Kristján
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/greg%40krypto.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20081127/0549991c/attachment.htm>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-November/083734.html below:

[Python-Dev] socket.c, _rbufsize