Message199716
> Wouldn't it be more interesting to make the app's get() method
> asynchronous as well, so that each chunk actually gets passed
> separately?
That's a good point. I'll try to look into it.
> Or maybe split it up into two benchmarks, one that exercises the
> asynchronous client (as your current code does) and one that shifts more
> work to the server side? Not sure if it's worth it, but might be worth
> trying. I think it would cover two different use cases that way.
You still need a client to exercise the server, and a server to exercise the client, so I'm not sure how to separate them (short of using an external utility, which would add dependencies). |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2013-10-13 15:00:24 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, brett.cannon, gregory.p.smith, scoder |
2013-10-13 15:00:24 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1381676424.06.0.0312172408654.issue19236@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2013-10-13 15:00:24 | pitrou | link | issue19236 messages |
2013-10-13 15:00:24 | pitrou | create | |
|