Johannes Bauer writes:
> You're entirely right that this kind of personal feud and immature
> mockery is inappropriate for a mailing list and you're also right that
> it does create a toxic atmosphere. Since Python is the lanauge I'm
> most passionate about a detrimental effect on the Python comm
On 23.08.2015 18:47, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Since this is an ajax thing, I can entirely
> understand that Firefox introduces random delays. Practically all
> ajax-heavy sites I've ever used has had random slowdowns in Firefox.
This would imply that random six-second delays have somehow passed t
On 08/23/2015 08:05 AM, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> By git bisect he can find out where
> he introduced the bug.
Like Cecil said, this is of little help. There was no code changed from
when he didn't notice the behavior until he did.
>> Note that this says nothing about the location of the bug, in c
On Sunday 23 Aug 2015 17:44 CEST, MRAB wrote:
>> I never blamed bottle, I was asking if it could be a problem with
>> bottle.
>>
> The subject says otherwise. :-)
Yeah, my communication skills can take some improvement. I meant: I
have this problem. I think it could have to do something with bott
On 2015-08-23 16:20, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 23 Aug 2015 16:05 CEST, Johannes Bauer wrote:
On 22.08.2015 16:15, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
Probably yes. You should take a look at the OP again and compare
the time stamps. It says that in between two consecutive calls of
the same prog
On Sunday 23 Aug 2015 16:05 CEST, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 22.08.2015 16:15, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>
>> Probably yes. You should take a look at the OP again and compare
>> the time stamps. It says that in between two consecutive calls of
>> the same program, the request was served once in
On 22.08.2015 16:15, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Probably yes. You should take a look at the OP again and compare the
> time stamps. It says that in between two consecutive calls of the same
> program, the request was served once in a second, and once with serious
> delays. Despite that the serv
On Sunday 23 Aug 2015 03:05 CEST, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> But in principal I have found the problem. (Not the reason.) The
>> problem is Firefox. (So it is not bottle and also not AngularJS.)
>> When using Chrome there is no problem. Not even when I do 15 times
>> a refresh. With Firefox there is
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> How do I see if there is an open socket?
Depends on your OS. On Linux, I can poke around in /proc or with
commands like netstat and/or lsof. It may be easier to separate client
and server across two computers, which would force the socket
On Sunday 23 Aug 2015 01:13 CEST, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> I have included the output as attachment. It is clear that bottle
>> is not the problem: fetching all the data takes at most 0.017
>> seconds.
>>
>
> Something to consider: You cou
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> I have included the output as attachment. It is clear that bottle is
> not the problem: fetching all the data takes at most 0.017 seconds.
>
Something to consider: You could be running into some weird
interaction of caches. Try blowing you
On Saturday 22 Aug 2015 20:03 CEST, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> On Saturday 22 Aug 2015 17:33 CEST, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>> On 08/22/2015 05:37 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
I don't know. Is it bottle, or the browser, or something
completely different that eats the extra time?
>>>
>>> I rea
On Saturday 22 Aug 2015 17:33 CEST, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 08/22/2015 05:37 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>> I don't know. Is it bottle, or the browser, or something
>>> completely different that eats the extra time?
>>
>> I really do not know. I suspect bottle, but I am new to this, so I
>> val
On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 9:03:52 PM UTC+5:30, Michael Torrie wrote:
> While it's true this particular problem is possibly beyond the scope of
> this python list (and may not be python-related at all), it's too bad a
> couple of people have taken the time to reply to your queries to simply
>
On 08/22/2015 05:37 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> I don't know. Is it bottle, or the browser, or something completely
>> different that eats the extra time?
>
> I really do not know. I suspect bottle, but I am new to this, so I
> value the suspicion of someone who has more experience more. :-D
T
Am 22.08.15 um 15:51 schrieb Johannes Bauer:
On 22.08.2015 15:09, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
So let me get your story straight:
I wish you really meant that.
I really do, did I get it wrong at all? I really don't think that I did.
Probably yes. You should take a look at the OP again and compa
On 22.08.2015 15:09, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> So let me get your story straight:
>
> I wish you really meant that.
I really do, did I get it wrong at all? I really don't think that I did.
> Also: take a course in reading.
Maybe you, oh very wise Senior Software Engineer, should take a course
On Saturday 22 Aug 2015 14:09 CEST, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 22.08.2015 13:28, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>
>> If you would have taken a little more time you would have seen that
>> there where 20 seconds between both logs. I am fast, but not that
>> fast. It is exactly the same code. I suppose it h
On 22.08.2015 13:28, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> If you would have taken a little more time you would have seen that
> there where 20 seconds between both logs. I am fast, but not that
> fast. It is exactly the same code. I suppose it has to do something
> with bottle. Something I use since yesterday
On Saturday 22 Aug 2015 09:49 CEST, Peter Otten wrote:
> Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>
>> I created a simple application with bottle:
>> https://github.com/CecilWesterhof/PublishedPhotos
>>
>> But sometimes it needs a lot of time. For example: 127.0.0.1 - -
>> [21/Aug/2015 23:16:40] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 30
On Friday 21 Aug 2015 23:55 CEST, gst wrote:
> What if you try with all the SQLite code commented ?
I do not think that is the problem. First of all I do not think
receiving 25 records takes 6 seconds.
Secondly the first part is:
127.0.0.1 - - [21/Aug/2015 23:16:40] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 304 0
127.0.
On Saturday 22 Aug 2015 11:41 CEST, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 21.08.2015 23:22, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>
>> Just before everything was done in a second:
>
> Since you're on GitHub, why don't you git bisect and find out where
> you screwed up instead of trying to get people to remotely debug and
>
On 21.08.2015 23:22, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Just before everything was done in a second:
Since you're on GitHub, why don't you git bisect and find out where you
screwed up instead of trying to get people to remotely debug and profile
your broken code?
Cheers,
Johannes
--
>> Wo hattest Du das
Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> I created a simple application with bottle:
> https://github.com/CecilWesterhof/PublishedPhotos
>
> But sometimes it needs a lot of time. For example:
> 127.0.0.1 - - [21/Aug/2015 23:16:40] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 304 0
> 127.0.0.1 - - [21/Aug/2015 23:16:40] "GET /static/css
What if you try with all the SQLite code commented ?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I created a simple application with bottle:
https://github.com/CecilWesterhof/PublishedPhotos
But sometimes it needs a lot of time. For example:
127.0.0.1 - - [21/Aug/2015 23:16:40] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 304 0
127.0.0.1 - - [21/Aug/2015 23:16:40] "GET /static/css/default.css HTTP/1.1" 304 0
127.0.0
26 matches
Mail list logo
