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 | zanella |
|---|---|
| Recipients | jyasskin, zanella |
| Date | 2008年05月07日.18:16:14 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.07191684 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1210184176.91.0.126235589476.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. Never thought of using the SocketServer taht way, wouldn't the person doing this bunch of shutdown()s and serve_forever()s be better off using handle_request() on a loop instead ? >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? I don't think I understand this part, what loop do you refer to ? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年05月07日 18:16:17 | zanella | set | spambayes_score: 0.0719168 -> 0.07191684 recipients: + zanella, jyasskin |
| 2008年05月07日 18:16:16 | zanella | set | spambayes_score: 0.0719168 -> 0.0719168 messageid: <1210184176.91.0.126235589476.issue2302@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年05月07日 18:16:15 | zanella | link | issue2302 messages |
| 2008年05月07日 18:16:14 | zanella | create | |