Message149825
| Author | neologix |
|---|---|
| Recipients | neologix, r.david.murray, sdaoden |
| Date | 2011-12-19.10:03:14 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.0054744906 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <CAH_1eM0yO_xFMBGZ7YNJtAs_2VQ8u5=HbCBfgQ_7DxcnSXKY8w@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1324268015.74.0.389191563129.issue11867@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> Probably because I'm a threading/multiprocessing neophyte :) That's a very good reason :-) Here's a version using two multiprocessing events. Note that I use timeouts for wait() just to avoid being stuck if something goes wrong: the test now runs in a dozen ms. By the way, next time you need a duplex communication between two processes, you can use socketpair(), which returns a pair of connected sockets. |
|
| Files | |
|---|---|
| File name | Uploaded |
| test_mailbox_evt.diff | neologix, 2011-12-19.10:03:14 |
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-12-19 10:03:15 | neologix | set | recipients: + neologix, r.david.murray, sdaoden |
| 2011-12-19 10:03:15 | neologix | link | issue11867 messages |
| 2011-12-19 10:03:15 | neologix | create | |