This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients Justin.Cappos, bbangert, exarkun, giampaolo.rodola, loewis, ned.deily, nicdumz, pitrou, ronaldoussoren, roysmith
Date 2010-11-21.19:45:42
SpamBayes Score 1.85833e-09
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1290368740.3620.37.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <4CE96D92.4080207@v.loewis.de>
Content
> > Anyway, my personal opinion is that we should consider the current
> > behavior a bug and fix it.  I like the idea of setting all accepted
> > sockets to blocking mode (and documenting it clearly).
> 
> -1.
> 
> > I think it is what most people would expect.
> 
> Apparently, the designers of BSD thought differently. Remember that
> it is them who defined the socket API in the first place, so they
> have the right that their design decisions are considered.

We are talking about the timeout feature, which is a Python feature, not
a BSD (or Linux) sockets feature. It should work properly, even if that
means adding some boilerplate around system calls.

> We should also take issue10115 into account, which proposes changes
> to accept on Linux. One solution might to add optional flags to
> accept(), asking for certain behavior variations.

Adding flags to control inheritance could be done. But here the problem
is that the behaviour is buggy even without assuming the API makes any
promise w.r.t. inheritance.
(in other words, while issue10115 is a feature request, this issue is
really a bug)
History
Date User Action Args
2010-11-21 19:45:45pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, loewis, ronaldoussoren, exarkun, roysmith, giampaolo.rodola, ned.deily, nicdumz, bbangert, Justin.Cappos
2010-11-21 19:45:42pitroulinkissue7995 messages
2010-11-21 19:45:42pitroucreate