threading with time limit
Gordon McMillan
gmcm at hypernet.com
Mon Jun 5 17:31:16 EDT 2000
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Mon Jun 5 17:31:16 EDT 2000
- Previous message (by thread): threading with time limit
- Next message (by thread): threading with time limit
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
intmktg at Gloria.CAM.ORG (Marc Tardif) wrote in <Pine.LNX.4.10.10006051515580.30679-100000 at Gloria.CAM.ORG>: >How can x threads be started at once and stopped y seconds later, >processing only the successfully returned threads? Threads have to stop themselves. You can't "kill" a thread without jeopardizing the integrity of the process. >For example, consider a situation where all the links from multiple URL's >must be retrieved at the same time. By setting a time limit, slow sites >don't slow down the whole process and appropriate error messages are >returned stating which sites wheren't completed in y seconds. Then you need to use a method of retrieving that recognizes time limits. In your case, you have 3 choices: - a version of urllib where urlopen uses select with a timeout and aborts if the timeout expires (Aahz may have done this?). - a version of urllib that uses non-blocking sockets (then no threads needed). - use separate processes instead of separate threads (because you *can* kill a process and properly release resources). If none of those options are available to you, then you're doing roughly the right thing - just ignore the thread if it's too slow. - Gordon
- Previous message (by thread): threading with time limit
- Next message (by thread): threading with time limit
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list