Author yselivanov
Recipients asvetlov, njs, pitrou, vstinner, yselivanov
Date 2017-12-19.15:56:14
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1513698974.74.0.213398074469.issue32373@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
It looks like we have a bug with 'sock.settimeout()' and non-blocking/blocking modes (or maybe this is a feature?)

Currently:

* to make a socket non-blocking, we call 'sock.settimeout(0)'.

* to make a socket blocking, we call 'sock.settimeout(None)'.


What happens if we call sock.settimeout(t), where t > 0?  The internal timeout field of the socket object will simply be set to 't'.  What happens if the socket was in a non-blocking mode?  Nothing, it stays in non-blocking mode.

What it means: suppose you have a non-blocking socket.  You call socket.settimeout(10), and most likely you wanted to make it blocking again.  Because all operations on the socket become blocking from moment (sock_call_ex repeats on EWOULDBLOCK and EAGAIN).

Now is having a timeout and blocking send/recv methods on a non-blocking socket a feature? Or is this a bug?
History
Date User Action Args
2017-12-19 15:56:14yselivanovsetrecipients: + yselivanov, pitrou, vstinner, njs, asvetlov
2017-12-19 15:56:14yselivanovsetmessageid: <1513698974.74.0.213398074469.issue32373@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-12-19 15:56:14yselivanovlinkissue32373 messages
2017-12-19 15:56:14yselivanovcreate