Lightwight socket IO wrapper
rosuav at gmail.com
Mon Sep 21 10:07:23 CEST 2015
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net> wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> wrote:
>>> For sizes below 128, one byte of length. For sizes 128-16383, two bytes. And
>>> so on. Compact yet unbounded.
>> It's generally a lot faster to do a read(2) than a loop with any
>> number of read(1), and you get some kind of bound on your allocations.
>> Whether that's important to you or not is another question, but
>> certainly your chosen encoding is a good way of allowing arbitrary
>> integer values.
> You can read a full buffer even if you have a variable-length length
Not sure what you mean there. Unless you can absolutely guarantee that
you didn't read too much, or can absolutely guarantee that your
buffering function will be the ONLY way anything reads from the
socket, buffering is a problem.
More information about the Python-list