On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 01:01, Jason J. W. Williams
wrote:
> I'm really pulling my hair out here. The code in question uses getPage:
> http://gist.github.com/607124
> If I remove the postdata argument to getPage no problem (except the postdata
> is required by server I'm calling). However, no matte
I'm really pulling my hair out here. The code in question uses getPage:
http://gist.github.com/607124
If I remove the postdata argument to getPage no problem (except the postdata
is required by server I'm calling). However, no matter what I put in
postdata, I get this:
http://gist.github.com/607
Thanks, that explains everything. The code I was using to test was copied
from Twisted's daemonizing function:
http://github.com/powdahound/twisted/blob/master/twisted/scripts/_twistd_unix.py#L155-169
It should probably be updated before more users upgrade to the new kernel
and run into this issue
On 01/10/2010 15:00, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
>> I hope this helps, do let me know if I should add it to an issue
>> somewhere...
>
> Can you at least provide a traffic capture recording an instance of this
> happening?
I'm afraid not, I didn't have the forsight to do this at the time, and
On 01:30 pm, ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
>Hi Glyph,
>
>On 30/09/2010 19:52, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>>>File "Twisted-8.2.0-py2.5-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/base.py",
>>>line 757, in runUntilCurrent
>>>call.func(*call.args, **call.kw)
>>>File "test_looping.py", line 24, in __call__
>>>del se
Hi Glyph,
On 30/09/2010 19:52, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>> File "Twisted-8.2.0-py2.5-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/base.py",
>> line 757, in runUntilCurrent
>> call.func(*call.args, **call.kw)
>> File "test_looping.py", line 24, in __call__
>> del self.connector
>> exceptions.AttributeError: Bre
On 01/10/10 14:19, Chris Withers wrote:
> On 30/09/2010 18:01, Phil Mayers wrote:
>> It is more than a little confusing, and I'm sure frustrating.
>>
>> I've tried to produce something like this locally, but cannot.
>
> The very first message in this thread (28th Sept, 14:48) and my email of
> 30th
On 12:58 pm, p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
>On 01/10/10 13:46, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
>>On 09:41 am, p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
>>>Is there an easy way to make a task.Cooperator instance only execute
>>>N
>>>ticks / sec, summed across all iterators it's driving? So if you add
>>>two
On 30/09/2010 18:01, Phil Mayers wrote:
> It is more than a little confusing, and I'm sure frustrating.
>
> I've tried to produce something like this locally, but cannot.
The very first message in this thread (28th Sept, 14:48) and my email of
30th Sept, 14:36 both had scripts attached which do e
On 01/10/10 13:46, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
> On 09:41 am, p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
>> Is there an easy way to make a task.Cooperator instance only execute N
>> ticks / sec, summed across all iterators it's driving? So if you add
>> two
>> iterators, they each run at N/2 per sec, 3 at
On 09:41 am, p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
>Is there an easy way to make a task.Cooperator instance only execute N
>ticks / sec, summed across all iterators it's driving? So if you add
>two
>iterators, they each run at N/2 per sec, 3 at N/3, etc.
>
>It seems like this ought to do it:
Very close!
Is there an easy way to make a task.Cooperator instance only execute N
ticks / sec, summed across all iterators it's driving? So if you add two
iterators, they each run at N/2 per sec, 3 at N/3, etc.
It seems like this ought to do it:
N =
def myScheduler(x):
# reschedule N times per second
12 matches
Mail list logo
