This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author asvetlov
Recipients asvetlov, docs@python, r.david.murray, yselivanov, Константин Волков
Date 2016-10-27.19:32:56
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1477596777.17.0.576831471398.issue28212@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
From my perspective the problem is: many asyncio calls schedules a delayed activity internally.
E.g. `task.cancel()` doesn't cancels immediately but requires at least one extra loop iteration.
The same is true for `transport.close()` -- it doesn't close socket in the call.
This behavior is encouraged by asyncio design and many third-party libraries just call `transp.close()` without waiting for upcoming `protocol.connection_lost()` callback.

I don't think it's a big problem, especially for server code.
But when users write small client tool they need to do extra no-op loop iterations before `loop.close()` call.

Waiting for no scheduled by `loop.call_soon()` callbacks makes no sense I believe. I could open a can of worms by introducing another weird side effects.
History
Date User Action Args
2016-10-27 19:32:57asvetlovsetrecipients: + asvetlov, r.david.murray, docs@python, yselivanov, Константин Волков
2016-10-27 19:32:57asvetlovsetmessageid: <1477596777.17.0.576831471398.issue28212@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-10-27 19:32:57asvetlovlinkissue28212 messages
2016-10-27 19:32:56asvetlovcreate