Skip to content

IOCP Proactor same socket overlapped callbacks #85418

Closed
Closed
IOCP Proactor same socket overlapped callbacks#85418
Labels
3.10 (EOL)end of life3.11only security fixes3.12only security fixestopic-asyncio

Description

@tontinton
tontinton
mannequin
opened on Jul 8, 2020
BPO 41246
Nosy @JimJJewett, @tontinton
PRs
  • bpo-41246: IOCP Proactor same socket overlapped callbacks #21399
    		•

    Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.

    Show more details

    GitHub fields:

    assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2020-07-08.17:20:08.338>
labels = ['3.10']
title = 'IOCP Proactor same socket overlapped callbacks'
updated_at = <Date 2020-08-30.05:01:41.656>
user = 'https://github.com/tontinton'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2020-08-30.05:01:41.656>
actor = 'Jim.Jewett'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = []
creation = <Date 2020-07-08.17:20:08.338>
creator = 'tontinton'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 41246
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 4.0
messages = ['373324', '373533', '373534', '376081']
nosy_count = 2.0
nosy_names = ['Jim.Jewett', 'tontinton']
pr_nums = ['21399']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'commit review'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue41246'
versions = ['Python 3.10']

    Activity

    1. tontinton commented on Jul 8, 2020

      @tontinton
      tontintonmannequin
      on Jul 8, 2020
      MannequinAuthor

      In IocpProactor I saw that the callbacks to the functions recv, recv_into, recvfrom, sendto, send and sendfile all give the same callback function for when the overlapped operation is done.

      I just wanted cleaner code so I made a static function inside the class that I give to each of these functions as the overlapped callbacks.

    2. jimjjewett commented on Jul 11, 2020

      @jimjjewett
      jimjjewettmannequin
      on Jul 11, 2020
      Mannequin

      Looks good to me.

      I at first worried that the different function names were useful metadata that was getting lost -- but the names were already duplicated in several cases. *If* that is still a concern for the committer, then instead of repeating the code (as current production does), each section should just say newname=origname before registering the static method (as the patch does), and should bind a distinct name for each usage.

    3. jimjjewett
      added
      3.10 (EOL)end of life
      on Jul 11, 2020

    4. tontinton commented on Jul 11, 2020

      @tontinton
      tontintonmannequin
      on Jul 11, 2020
      MannequinAuthor

      I feel like the metadata is not really a concern here. I like when there is no code duplication :)

    5. tontinton commented on Aug 29, 2020

      @tontinton
      tontintonmannequin
      on Aug 29, 2020
      MannequinAuthor

      bump

    6. ezio-melotti
      transferred this issue fromon Apr 10, 2022
    7. kumaraditya303
      closed this as completedon Oct 14, 2022
    8. kumaraditya303
      added
      topic-asyncio
      3.11only security fixes
      3.12only security fixes
      on Oct 14, 2022
    9. ezio-melotti
      added this to asyncioon Oct 14, 2022
    10. ezio-melotti
      moved this to Todo in asyncioon Oct 14, 2022
    11. kumaraditya303
      moved this from Todo to Done in asyncioon Oct 16, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

    Metadata

    Metadata

    Assignees

    No one assigned

      Labels

      3.10 (EOL)end of life3.11only security fixes3.12only security fixestopic-asyncio

      Projects

      • asyncio
        Status
        Done

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions