Re: defect

[<mi...@st...>]

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>=20
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2002, at 04:58 , Michael Str=F6der wrote:
>=20
>> It's possible to make it somewhat simpler since we have a first=20
>> result() call before the while loops.
>>
>>     while all:
>=20
> this simplified version seems to slow down my setup.

Yes. I wrote that when posting the code snippet.

> here's a result set with leif's version::

Leif's version sets non-zero timeout. Therefore it's faster since=20
OpenLDAP's ldap_result() can use select() to determine=20
just-in-time when data is ready to be read. But it blocks which is=20
a bad thing because of ldap._ldap_lock serializing *all* calls...

Just adding the time.sleep() hands over the CPU to the OS. Off=20
course the while-loop is not just-in-time there if received data=20
is ready.

Again, the problem is that the OpenLDAP libs are not thread-safe...

Ciao, Michael.