Author polymorphm
Recipients loewis, mcjeff, polymorphm
Date 2012-05-17.14:10:33
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1337263834.6.0.316822571965.issue14134@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Jeff McNeil (mcjeff)> I would think it might make more sense just to make the change to the Transport object. Since there's an argument for a transport on ServerProxy already, that seems more straightforward and keeps the network layer isolated.

in theoretical-side -- this layer isolation may be good and clean.

but in practical-side -- situation is next:

there are 3 alternative-variants of using timeout parameter in XMLRPC-Client:

situation 1. programmer (who makes script or program) -- using XMLRPC-Client *WITH* timeout parameter, because timeout parameter should be using in his program. program runs in regular environment.

situation 2. programmer (who makes script or program) -- using XMLRPC-Client *WITHOUT* timeout parameter, because XMLRPC-connection runs in localhost environment.

situation 3. programmer (who makes script or program) -- using XMLRPC-Client *WITHOUT* timeout parameter, because he makes mistake.

"situation 1" -- very often. (or must be very often).

"situation 2" -- very rare.

"situation 3" -- leads to possible cases of freezing program/script or resource-leak.

if we will try to hide timeout parameter (in other layer), then "situation 3" will be more than "situation 1"

# p.s.: sorry for my bad english
History
Date User Action Args
2012-05-17 14:10:34polymorphmsetrecipients: + polymorphm, loewis, mcjeff
2012-05-17 14:10:34polymorphmsetmessageid: <1337263834.6.0.316822571965.issue14134@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-05-17 14:10:34polymorphmlinkissue14134 messages
2012-05-17 14:10:33polymorphmcreate