Lightwight socket IO wrapper

[Akira Li]

"James Harris" <james.harris.1 at gmail.com> writes:

> I guess there have been many attempts to make socket IO easier to
> handle and a good number of those have been in Python.
>
> The trouble with trying to improve something which is already well
> designed (and conciously left as is) is that the so-called improvement
> can become much more complex and overly elaborate. That can apply to
> the initial idea, for sure, but when writing helper or convenience
> functions perhaps it applies more to the temptation to keep adding
> just a little bit extra. The end result can be overly elaborate such
> as a framework which is fine where such is needed but is overkill for
> simpler requirements.
>
> Do you guys have any recommendations of some *lightweight* additions
> to Python socket IO before I write any more of my own? Something built
> in to Python would be much preferred over any modules which have to be
> added. I had in the back of my mind that there was a high-level
> socket-IO library - much as threading was added as a wrapper to the
> basic thread module - but I cannot find anything above socket. Is
> there any?

Does ØMQ qualify as lightweight?

> A current specific to illustrate where basic socket IO is limited: it
> normally provides no guarantees over how many bytes are transferred at
> a time (AFAICS that's true for both streams and datagrams) so the
> delimiting of messages/records needs to be handled by the sender and
> receiver. I do already handle some of this myself but I wondered if
> there was a prebuilt solution that I should be using instead - to save
> me adding just a little bit extra. ;-)

There are already convenience functions in stdlib such as
sock.sendall(), sock.sendfile(), socket.create_connection() in addition
to BSD Sockets API.

If you want to extend this list and have specific suggestions; see
  https://docs.python.org/devguide/stdlibchanges.html

Or just describe your current specific issue in more detail here.