Thank you, it's very helpful.
I think the recvall should builtin to the _socket module like sendall.
-- Original --
From: "Dan Stromberg";
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2018 06:01 AM
To: "陶青云";
Cc: "python-list";
Subject: Re: Why
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 5:26 AM, 陶青云 wrote:
> Hello, all
> The socket object has a `sendall` method that can send all bytes you
> specified.
> Oppositely, socket only has a recv method. I wonder why there is not a
> `recvall` method?
> To workaround this, I use `f = socket.mak
is reached first).
-- Original --
From: "Steven D'Aprano";
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2018 09:31 PM
To: "python-list";
Subject: Re: Why not have a recvall method?
On Sun, 04 Feb 2018 19:26:36 +0800, 陶青云 wrote:
> Hello, allThe socket objec
On Sun, 04 Feb 2018 19:26:36 +0800, 陶青云 wrote:
> Hello, allThe socket object has a `sendall` method that can send all
> bytes you specified. Oppositely, socket only has a recv method. I wonder
> why there is not a `recvall` method? To workaround this, I use `f =
> socket.makefile(
Hello, all
The socket object has a `sendall` method that can send all bytes you specified.
Oppositely, socket only has a recv method. I wonder why there is not a
`recvall` method?
To workaround this, I use `f = socket.makefile('rb')`, then all `f.read(n)`
Thanks.
Hello, allThe socket object has a `sendall` method that can send all bytes you
specified. Oppositely, socket only has
a recv method. I wonder why there is not a `recvall` method?
To workaround this, I use `f = socket.makefile('rb')`, then `call f.read(n)`
Thanks.
--
https://mail.
Hi All,
I am trying to program an HTTP webserver, I am a little confused about the
best way to program a recvall function. There are a couple of ways to do
this? But performance wise which one is better?
a) recvall using a timeout?
b) recvall using a condition that nothing was received?
c