Deprecate socket sendall method in favor of SocketStream.send_all #291
Comments
The high-level
This is probably rare but I bet it can happen in real life. The high-level layer can't just delegate worrying about So I think I've argued myself into saying that for now, we should add a note to the documentation warning that if you try calling the socket-level I guess there's even an argument for deprecating and removing the socket-level (Is there ever any reason to call |
I looked at this a little. Definitely not |
On even more investigation: POSIX says, regarding |
#292 for the documentation part. |
I looked at the high level async socket.sendall() trio 0.1.0 code and realized nothing would stop a user from calling sendall() from 2 tasks on the same socket, and having the individual lowlevel send()'s being intertwined, which is probably not what the user wants (ie fragmented/mashed sendall() data ordering).
Some options are:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: