Message228623
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Ben.Darnell, alex, chatgris, christian.heimes, dstufft, ezio.melotti, geertj, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, janssen, pitrou, python-dev, sbt, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date | 2014-10-05.22:19:08 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <5431C3D9.5010600@free.fr> |
| In-reply-to | <1412544246.62.0.232029739145.issue21965@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Le 05/10/2014 23:24, Geert Jansen a écrit : > > Yes, it could be done quite easily. SslPipe has no dependency on > other parts of Gruvi and if this is for Python 3.5 only then you don't need sslcompat either. Yes, it works. Note that I had to modify SSLPipe to also notify of handshake failures (by passing an argument to the handshake callback). Here is draft diff against asyncio: https://gist.github.com/pitrou/f04fa9cbfec88cc37050 However, I don't think this the right approach actually. Rather, the SSL layer should be implemented as a Protocol object that's also able to act as a transport for the actual application-level Protocol. It would completely decouple it from the transport and event loop implementation details. (I think that's how Twisted does it, btw) |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-10-05 22:19:08 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, gvanrossum, geertj, janssen, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, christian.heimes, ezio.melotti, alex, python-dev, sbt, Ben.Darnell, yselivanov, dstufft, chatgris |
| 2014-10-05 22:19:08 | pitrou | link | issue21965 messages |
| 2014-10-05 22:19:08 | pitrou | create | |