Author pitrou
Recipients amaury.forgeotdarc, beazley, dabeaz, gregory.p.smith, loewis, ned.deily, pitrou, rosslagerwall, roysmith
Date 2011-01-13.20:34:58
SpamBayes Score 0.000156289
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1294950896.3687.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <>
> > That's my opinion too. So, instead, of doing the above surgery inside
> > the IO stack, the SocketIO layer could detect the timeout and disallow
> > further access. What do you think?
> So after a timeout occurs the file-object basically becomes worthless?
> Would it make sense to automatically call the close method of the
> file-object after this occurs?

Actually, we only need to forbid further reads (writes would always
work). I think we should still let the user call the close method
Date User Action Args
2011-01-13 20:35:10pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, loewis, beazley, gregory.p.smith, amaury.forgeotdarc, roysmith, ned.deily, dabeaz, rosslagerwall
2011-01-13 20:34:58pitroulinkissue7322 messages
2011-01-13 20:34:58pitroucreate