Message66364
>With the code as it stands, calls to shutdown that happen before
>serve_forever enters its loop will deadlock, and there's no simple way
>for the user to avoid this. The attached patch prevents the deadlock and
>allows multiple serve_forever..shutdown cycles, but it's pretty
>complicated. I could make it a lot simpler by making shutdown permanent:
>any later serve_forever calls would return immediately.
Never thought of using the SocketServer taht way, wouldn't the person
doing this bunch of shutdown()s and serve_forever()s be better off using
handle_request() on a loop instead ?
>A third choice would be to add a .serve_in_thread function that returns
>a token that can be used to shut down exactly that loop, instead of
>putting .shutdown() on the server. Any opinions?
I don't think I understand this part, what loop do you refer to ? |
|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2008-05-07 18:16:17 | zanella | set | spambayes_score: 0.0719168 -> 0.0719168 recipients:
+ zanella, jyasskin |
| 2008-05-07 18:16:16 | zanella | set | spambayes_score: 0.0719168 -> 0.0719168 messageid: <1210184176.91.0.126235589476.issue2302@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008-05-07 18:16:15 | zanella | link | issue2302 messages |
| 2008-05-07 18:16:14 | zanella | create | |
|