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 | jyasskin |
|---|---|
| Recipients | jyasskin |
| Date | 2008年03月16日.15:15:50 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.061356474 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1205680557.19.0.19509352533.issue2302@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
With the code as it stands, calls to shutdown that happen before serve_forever enters its loop will deadlock, and there's no simple way for the user to avoid this. The attached patch prevents the deadlock and allows multiple serve_forever..shutdown cycles, but it's pretty complicated. I could make it a lot simpler by making shutdown permanent: any later serve_forever calls would return immediately. A third choice would be to add a .serve_in_thread function that returns a token that can be used to shut down exactly that loop, instead of putting .shutdown() on the server. Any opinions? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年03月16日 15:15:58 | jyasskin | set | spambayes_score: 0.0613565 -> 0.061356474 recipients: + jyasskin |
| 2008年03月16日 15:15:57 | jyasskin | set | spambayes_score: 0.0613565 -> 0.0613565 messageid: <1205680557.19.0.19509352533.issue2302@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年03月16日 15:15:55 | jyasskin | link | issue2302 messages |
| 2008年03月16日 15:15:54 | jyasskin | create | |