http://python.org/sf/2451 """ The new timeout support in 2.6 makes use of new function socket.create_connection(). socket.create_connection() provides no way to disable timeouts, other than by relying on socket.getdefaulttimeout() returning None. This is unfortunate, because it was the purpose of the new timeout support to allow control of timeouts without reliance on global state. setdefaultsocket.create_connection() should always call sock.settimeout() with the timeout passed to create_connection(), unless a special non-None value is passed indicating that the global default is to be used. Specific modules may then use that special non-None value where required, to preserve backwards-compatibility. """ Facundo doesn't seem to agree. If I understand him correctly, he objects to the use of a special value other than None as an argument value. I think avoiding this minor complication is secondary to avoiding gratuitously imposing global state on users where it's not needed. Much existing code uses .setdefaulttimeout(), because legacy code does not expose the socket timeout. Of course, not all of that code can be changed immediately (otherwise, why did we wait so long before Facundo did his valuable work on this?). Of course, very often, code that calls socket.setdefaulttimeout(some_non_none_value) wants a default timeout for everything. But that isn't *always* the case, and standard library modules that expose the timeout feature should not make that assumption. For example, an application might only want to set a timeout for some non-essential network operation. As another example, useful but poorly-written library code might call .setdefaulttimeout(). Also, ISTM there's a big difference between nobody having contributed the time to implement the feature on the one hand, and deliberately imposing the global socket timeout state on users on the other! Facundo indicates in the tracker discussion for 2451 that a decision was made here about this, but doesn't recall exactly which post, and directed me here. What I found in the archive is this thread (sorry for the non-python.org URL): http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/python/dev/555039?do=post_view_threade... In that discussion, this issue is raised, but I don't see any resolution that answers the objection made in issue 2451. Anyway, apologies in advance if there was a decision here that takes account of the above objection. I do want to thank Facundo for adding the timeout support to modules such as httplib. But I also want to loudly complain about this detail :-) John