[Python-Dev] I vote to reject: Adding timeout to socket.py and httplib.py.

Josiah Carlson jcarlson at uci.edu
Wed Mar 21 16:28:04 CET 2007

Facundo Batista <facundo at taniquetil.com.ar> wrote:
> Alan Kennedy wrote:
> > I recommend modifying the patch to remove *all* proposed changes to
> > the socket module. Instead, the patch should restrict itself to fixing
> > the httplib module.
> -1 to repeat the same functionality in 5 other libraries. 
> As I said above, we can make it non-public.
> So, as a resume of the choices we still need to settle:
>   a) Repeat the same functionality in 5 other libraries
>   b) Write the function in socket.py, public
>   c) Write the function in socket.py, non public

b or c is fine, I have no preference.  In regards to 'there is no way to
create a blocking socket this way', Alan is off his rocker. Facundo has
already stated that he would like to use something that will allow for
the passing of None as a timeout argument to specify no timeout - aka
blocking sockets, as per sock.settimeout(None) (through either **kwargs
or timeout=sentinel).

The function is needed, and the implementation is sufficient for its
intended uses.

 - Josiah

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list