Message214878
| Author | nikratio |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Ben.Darnell, christian.heimes, giampaolo.rodola, janssen, nikratio, pitrou, r.david.murray |
| Date | 2014-03-26.02:51:06 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <53324092.4020902@rath.org> |
| In-reply-to | <1395798837.72.0.670467013829.issue20951@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
On 03/25/2014 06:53 PM, Ben Darnell wrote:
> Another option may be to have SSLSocket.send() convert the WANT_WRITE exception into a socket.error with errno EAGAIN. This wouldn't break Tornado and would make socket.send and SSLSocket.send more consistent, but it's weird to hide the true error like this.
I think that would only make sense if the SSLWant{Read/Write}Error
exceptions are eliminated completely, so that all methods raise
BlockingError (==EAGAIN) instead.
Raising BlockingError is marginally better than returning zero, but I
think not worth the change. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-03-26 02:51:06 | nikratio | set | recipients: + nikratio, janssen, pitrou, giampaolo.rodola, christian.heimes, r.david.murray, Ben.Darnell |
| 2014-03-26 02:51:06 | nikratio | link | issue20951 messages |
| 2014-03-26 02:51:06 | nikratio | create | |