[Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Tue Nov 19 21:25:34 CET 2013
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Nov 19 21:25:34 CET 2013
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Am 19.11.13 20:59, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: > That's integrated to the built-in buffering. It's not really an > additional constraint: the frame sizes simply dictate how buffering > happens in practice. The main point of framing is to *simplify* the > buffering logic (of course, the old buffering logic is still there for > protocols <= 3, unfortunately). I wonder why this needs to be part of the pickle protocol at all, if it really is "below" the opcodes. Anybody desiring framing could just implement a framing version of the io.BufferedReader, which could be used on top of a socket connection (say) to allow fetching larger blocks from the network stack. This would then be transparent to the pickle implementation; the framing reader would, of course, provide the peek() operation to allow the unpickler to continue to use buffering. Such a framing BufferedReader might even be included in the standard library. Regards, Martin
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list