Reputation: 151
sock.setblocking(0)
try:
data = sock.recv(1024)
except socket.error, e:
if e.args[0] == errno.EWOULDBLOCK:
print 'EWOULDBLOCK'
else:
if not data: #recv over
sock.close()
print 'close================='
else:
print 'recv ---data---------'
poem += data
all above code is in a loop.using non-blocking socket
(just want to test 'non-blocking socket') to get data. But always print 'EWOULDBLOCK',i don't know why?
Upvotes: 10
Views: 26350
Reputation: 5207
The exception is raised by design, cause you are using non-blocking IO
.
The major mechanical difference is that send, recv, connect and accept can return without having done anything. You have (of course) a number of choices. You can check return code and error codes and generally drive yourself crazy.
Quoted from Python doc
If you run man errno 3
, you shall see the description of EWOULDBLOCK
. The exception is reasonable, because there is no data to read yet.
Upvotes: 3
Reputation: 87054
The socket is non-blocking so recv()
will raise an exception if there is no data to read. Note that errno.EWOULDBLOCK = errno.EAGAIN = 11. This is Python's (well the OS really) way of telling you to try the recv()
again later.
I note that you close the socket each time you get this exception. That's not going to help at all. Your code should be something like this:
import socket, errno, time
sock = socket.socket()
sock.connect(('hostname', 1234))
sock.setblocking(0)
while True:
try:
data = sock.recv(1024)
if not data:
print "connection closed"
sock.close()
break
else:
print "Received %d bytes: '%s'" % (len(data), data)
except socket.error, e:
if e.args[0] == errno.EWOULDBLOCK:
print 'EWOULDBLOCK'
time.sleep(1) # short delay, no tight loops
else:
print e
break
For this sort of thing, the select
module is usually the way to go.
Upvotes: 16