Message147629
> Well, the sentinels argument, right now, is meant to be used
> internally. I don't think it's a good thing to document it,
> since I don't think it's a very clean API (I know, I introduced
> it :-))
Wouldn't a better alternative be to have a wait function which can deal with readable pipe connections and integer handles?
On Unix this would just delegate to select().
On Windows it could work as follows:
* initiate an overlapped read on each connection
* call WaitForMultipleObjects()
* cancel each overlapped read
* continue any read which succeeded but only gave a partial message
* store read messages on associated connection objects
I did start on such a patch. It worked, but I did not get round to writing tests for it... |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-11-14 19:50:20 | sbt | set | recipients:
+ sbt, pitrou, ezio.melotti, eli.bendersky, sandro.tosi, docs@python |
2011-11-14 19:50:20 | sbt | set | messageid: <1321300220.35.0.384210185231.issue11836@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-11-14 19:50:19 | sbt | link | issue11836 messages |
2011-11-14 19:50:19 | sbt | create | |
|