On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Peter Westlake
wrote:
>
>> python -c "import pkg_resources;print pkg_resources.require('Twisted')"
>
> It says:
>
> allmydata-tahoe-1.7.0$ python -c "import pkg_resources;print
> pkg_resources.require('Twisted')"
> [Twisted 10.0.0
> (/localhome/packages/allmydata-t
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 17:43 -0700, Don Dwiggins wrote:
> What this probably means in practice is that twisted needs to use a
> reactor which calls MsgWaitForMultipleObjects() and runs a message loop
> when the function detects a new message is in the queue. I'm not sure
> if there is an existi
I need to create a COM object in a Windows application, and call it.
Since the call will take some time to execute, I wrap it in a deferToThread.
I've found that, when I create the object inline, it works. However,
when I defer it, it hangs up in the win32com.client.Dispatch call. I've
tried
On Jun 28, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Landreville wrote:
> Is there some way for runInteraction to wait for this deferred to be
> finished before ending the transaction?
blockingCallFromThread:
http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/10.0.0/api/twisted.internet.threads.html#blockingCallFromThread
:)___
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 15:30, James Y Knight wrote:
> Or, if just listdir("/proc/%d/fd/" % getpid()). If that doesn't fail
> (aka /proc/pid/fd actually exists and is mounted on this OS) then only
> close the listed fds. That'll be much much faster.
I just did that, James (http://twistedmatrix.co
On Jun 28, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Itamar Turner-Trauring wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 13:21 +0100, Carlos Valiente wrote:
>> I wanted to skip the calls to close()
>> -- 1024 of them, in my case -- because, according to strace(1),
>> that
>> takes about 100 ms (and I'd like to save those millisec
I am working with a third-party web-scraping application that also
uses twisted (Scrapy) and would like for it to do its thing in a
transaction along with a database action. This can be done with
runInteraction, but Scrapy uses a non-blocking call when it does its
thing. This actually doesn't even
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 13:21 +0100, Carlos Valiente wrote:
> I wanted to skip the calls to close()
> -- 1024 of them, in my case -- because, according to strace(1), that
> takes about 100 ms (and I'd like to save those milliseconds).
Ah, I see. So the issue is performance. If you do file a ticket
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 13:04, Itamar Turner-Trauring
wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 12:52 +0100, Carlos Valiente wrote:
>> Hi! Is there any way of telling reactor.spawnProcess() not to close
>> all open file descriptors?
>
> My Unix knowledge is weak, but - couldn't you pass in duplicate fds, so
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 12:52 +0100, Carlos Valiente wrote:
> Hi! Is there any way of telling reactor.spawnProcess() not to close
> all open file descriptors?
My Unix knowledge is weak, but - couldn't you pass in duplicate fds, so
that when they are closed it wouldn't affect the originals?
__
Hi! Is there any way of telling reactor.spawnProcess() not to close
all open file descriptors? I've tried passing the following as
``childFDs``:
childFDs = {0: "w", 1: "r", 2: "r"}
max_fds = resource.getrlimit(resource.RLIMIT_NOFILE)[1] + 1
for i in xrange(3, max_fds):
childFDs[i] = i
11 matches
Mail list logo
