-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 331
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Don't track sockets in memory, or give option to track them not in-memory #112
Comments
Hello. Is there any news on this? Can I do something to help? Thanks! |
Looking at the problem briefly it seems like if Possibly something like:
Not sure if |
Could we use the Manager in the multiprocessing lib ?
|
I think that could work, especially as the default. Though making it easy to use a pluggable store or some other custom implementation would be nice. I'll try running tests against it. Word of warning in that mutable objects inside a shared dict from Manager won't know if they've been modified or not, so to update them you need to reassign the object to the dictionary. |
Hello, any news on this? We're planning on updating a huge site with socketio-gevent. Having to create multiple apps bound to different ports for IE to works feels like such an ugly workaround. :) |
@moodh I'm looking into it this weekend but no guarantees |
Hi there, The problem I am facing is that pickling the Socket object does not work because of the virtsocket.Socket.server.attribute. I am not sure about the correct way to pickle this object. Do you have any idea/recommendation on how to pickle the Socket the right way ? |
Hi, |
If using multiple workers and long polling, you wont be able to track the sockets because they are tracked in memory per process.
We should track them via cookies or pluggable stores like redis.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: