[issue909005] asyncore fixes and improvements

[Aleksi Torhamo]

Aleksi Torhamo <alexerion+pythonbugs at gmail.com> added the comment:

"not the handle_close_event() replacements, stick with handle_close()".
I'm guessing this has to do with "breaking the abstraction"?

I can't think of a situation where handle_close() is called, but close()
should not be called. If indeed so, i feel it's weird to require the
user remember to call close(), and it should IMHO be done automatically.
(I feel like i'm bitten by this each and every time i replace the
default handle_close().. :)

If the naming of handle_close_event() is not appropriate (as it "sounds"
like a layer 1 method), how about adding do_close(), and making other
places call that?

def do_close(self):
    self.close()
    self.handle_close()

----------
nosy: +alexer

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue909005>
_______________________________________