Guido van Rossum added the comment: Heh. Well I don't remember why I did that any more, and it doesn't seem to matter now.
However the doc issue seems different than for BaseEventLoop -- Server is the *concrete* class (it actually gets instantiated, not a subclass). We could instead document the AbstractServer class, but it doesn't have the 'sockets' instance variable. Maybe we should document both -- AbstractServer as the minimal interface that create_server() returns, Server as the actual class that the default event loops (Unix and Windows) create. With a warning that 'sockets' attribute may not be available if the event loop has been configured differently. On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM, STINNER Victor <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > > STINNER Victor added the comment: > > > why was Server there at all? Tests? > > If you cannot answer, who can answer? :-) > https://code.google.com/p/tulip/source/detail?r=f136c04d82c0 (You > added Server to __all__.) > > I don't see any use case which needs to create explicitly a Server > class. There are the create_server() method and start_server() > function for that. > > By the way, the Server class *is* documented as asyncio.Server, which > is the same mistake than asyncio.BaseEventLoop: > https://docs.python.org/dev/library/asyncio-eventloop.html#asyncio.Server > > I propose to update the doc for Server, replace asyncio.Server with > asyncio.base_events.Server. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue23046> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23046> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
