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 Justin.Cappos
Recipients Justin.Cappos, bbangert, exarkun, giampaolo.rodola, loewis, ned.deily, nicdumz, pitrou, ronaldoussoren, roysmith
Date 2010-11-21.20:40:32
SpamBayes Score 5.98401e-11
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1290372035.17.0.457676089087.issue7995@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> > Well, I don't think setting a timeout on a listening socket and then
> > expecting the socket received through accept() to be non-blocking (but
> > only on BSD) is a legitimate application.
>
>
> Right. But setting the server socket to nonblocking, and then 
> expecting the connection socket to also be nonblocking might be.

Okay sure.   This is fine.   That is why I suggested that if you don't like my patch, one might instead change new Python sockets to inherit the timeout / blocking setting on BSD.

However, I hope we can all agree that having the Python socket object in a different blocking / non-blocking state than the OS socket descriptor is wrong.   This is what needs to be fixed.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-11-21 20:40:35Justin.Cappossetrecipients: + Justin.Cappos, loewis, ronaldoussoren, exarkun, roysmith, pitrou, giampaolo.rodola, ned.deily, nicdumz, bbangert
2010-11-21 20:40:35Justin.Cappossetmessageid: <1290372035.17.0.457676089087.issue7995@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-11-21 20:40:32Justin.Capposlinkissue7995 messages
2010-11-21 20:40:32Justin.Capposcreate