Message226237
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Ben.Darnell, alex, christian.heimes, dstufft, ezio.melotti, geertj, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, janssen, pitrou, sbt, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date | 2014-09-01.17:43:40 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1409593421.14.0.103928574374.issue21965@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> We can leave these undocumented at the Python level if you prefer. I'd rather that indeed. If there's a specific need, we can expose them as a separate issue. > Maybe just "SSLInstance", would that be better than "SSLObject"? That doesn't sound much better :-) Ok, let's keep SSLObject then. > I believe that the overall _ssl/ssl code could be simplified by: [snip] That would be nice. Would that also handle e.g. socket timeouts? > To use SSLObject as a mixin it would have to be aware of these two uses of its subclasses. It could be done but I don't think it's 100% clean either. Fair enough. We just have to make sure to implement and test new APIs twice (e.g the version() method in issue20421). |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-09-01 17:43:41 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, gvanrossum, geertj, janssen, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, christian.heimes, ezio.melotti, alex, sbt, Ben.Darnell, yselivanov, dstufft |
| 2014-09-01 17:43:41 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1409593421.14.0.103928574374.issue21965@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014-09-01 17:43:41 | pitrou | link | issue21965 messages |
| 2014-09-01 17:43:40 | pitrou | create | |