Re: Misunderstanding buffering - flushing isn't

2014-11-05 Thread Dave Angel
Skip Montanaro Wrote in message: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Skip Montanaro > wrote: >> I figured everything would be flushed to the respective .stdout and >> .stderr files at the end of every request, but that appears not to be >> the case. > > I stand corrected. I added > > pri

Re: Misunderstanding buffering - flushing isn't

2014-11-05 Thread Mark Lawrence
On 05/11/2014 17:54, Skip Montanaro wrote: On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Irmen de Jong wrote: Any reason you're not using the logging module and get it all nicely dumped into a log file instead? I'm an old fart. What can I say? BITD, (as Irmen is well aware, being about as old as I am in

Re: Misunderstanding buffering - flushing isn't

2014-11-05 Thread Chris Angelico
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote: > I'm an old fart. What can I say? BITD, (as Irmen is well aware, being > about as old as I am in Python years), print was all we had. (We also > walked uphill to school in both directions, in the snow.) While I use > the logging module in othe

Re: Misunderstanding buffering - flushing isn't

2014-11-05 Thread Skip Montanaro
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Irmen de Jong wrote: > Any reason you're not using the logging module and get it all nicely dumped > into a log > file instead? I'm an old fart. What can I say? BITD, (as Irmen is well aware, being about as old as I am in Python years), print was all we had. (We

Re: Misunderstanding buffering - flushing isn't

2014-11-05 Thread Irmen de Jong
On 5-11-2014 17:44, Skip Montanaro wrote: > As it's still being actively developed, I've been dumping all sorts of > diagnostic prints to stdout and stderr. Any reason you're not using the logging module and get it all nicely dumped into a log file instead? (asks he who regularly inserts prints

Re: Misunderstanding buffering - flushing isn't

2014-11-05 Thread Skip Montanaro
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote: > I figured everything would be flushed to the respective .stdout and > .stderr files at the end of every request, but that appears not to be > the case. I stand corrected. I added print ">> request finished" to the end of do_GET (j

Misunderstanding buffering - flushing isn't

2014-11-05 Thread Skip Montanaro
I've been developing a little web server. The request handler subclasses SimpleHTTPRequestHandler. It has a do_GET method which figures out what work to actually do, then ends with this: def do_GET(self): ... sys.stdout.flush() sys.stderr.flush() As it's still being ac