Message160970
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 |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-05-17 14:10:34 | polymorphm | set | recipients:
+ polymorphm, loewis, mcjeff |
2012-05-17 14:10:34 | polymorphm | set | messageid: <1337263834.6.0.316822571965.issue14134@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-05-17 14:10:34 | polymorphm | link | issue14134 messages |
2012-05-17 14:10:33 | polymorphm | create | |
|