Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Sat, 16 May 2009 04:04:03 -0300, Igor Katson <descent...@gmail.com>
escribió:
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Fri, 15 May 2009 09:04:05 -0300, Igor Katson escribió:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <mailman.185.1242375959.8015.python-l...@python.org>,
Igor Katson wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <mailman.183.1242371089.8015.python-l...@python.org>,
Igor Katson wrote:
I have problems in getting a SocketServer to shutdown.
Shutdown implies closing the listening socket, doesn't it?
No (perhaps it should, but that is another issue). There is a
documentation bug; BaseServer.shutdown is documented as "Tells the
serve_forever() loop to stop and waits until it does." [1]
The docstring is much more explicit: """Stops the serve_forever loop.
Blocks until the loop has finished. This must be called while
serve_forever() is running in another thread, or it will deadlock."""
So, if you have a single-threaded server, *don't* use shutdown().
And, to orderly close the listening socket, use server_close()
instead. Your
Hmm. Gabriel, could you please show the same for the threaded
version? This one deadlocks:
[code removed]
The shutdown method should *only* be called while serve_forever is
running. If called after server_forever exited, shutdown() blocks
forever.
[code removed]
But, what are you after, exactly? I think I'd use the above code only
in a GUI application with a background server.
There are other alternatives, like asyncore or Twisted.
For now, I am just using server.server_close() and it works. The server
itself is an external transaction manager for PostgreSQL, when a client
connects to it, serialized data interchange beetween the server and the
client starts, e.g. first the client sends data, then the server sends
data, then again the client, then the server and so on.
I haven't used asyncore or Twisted yet, and didn't know about their
possible usage while writing the project. I'll research in that direction.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
