Message147629
| Author |
sbt |
| Recipients |
docs@python, eli.bendersky, ezio.melotti, pitrou, sandro.tosi, sbt |
| Date |
2011年11月14日.19:50:19 |
| SpamBayes Score |
1.0840722e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1321300220.35.0.384210185231.issue11836@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> Well, the sentinels argument, right now, is meant to be used
> internally. I don't think it's a good thing to document it,
> since I don't think it's a very clean API (I know, I introduced
> it :-))
Wouldn't a better alternative be to have a wait function which can deal with readable pipe connections and integer handles?
On Unix this would just delegate to select().
On Windows it could work as follows:
* initiate an overlapped read on each connection
* call WaitForMultipleObjects()
* cancel each overlapped read
* continue any read which succeeded but only gave a partial message
* store read messages on associated connection objects
I did start on such a patch. It worked, but I did not get round to writing tests for it... |
|