On Oct 13, 6:54 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED] central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gabriel > > > > Genellina wrote: > > En Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:25:01 -0300, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > escribió: > > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > > >>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >>> Gabriel Genellina wrote: > > >>>> Usually it's more efficient to create all the MAX_THREADS at once, and > >>>> continuously feed them with tasks to be done. > > >>> Given that the bottleneck is most likely to be the internet > >>> connection, I'd say the "premature optimization is the root of all evil" > >>> adage applies here. > > >> Feeding a fixed pool of worker threads with a Queue() is a standard > >> design that is easy to understand and one the OP should learn. Re-using > >> tested code is certainly efficient of programmer time. > > > I'd like to add that debugging a program that continuously creates and > > destroys threads is a real PITA. > > That's God trying to tell you to avoid threads altogether.
Especially in a case like this that's tailor made for a trivial state- machine solution if you really want multiple connections. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
