Message142812
> That's the part I'm questioning though. I'm not clear why you'd ever do
> that instead of doing everything on the original socket before invoking
> ssl.wrap_socket.
>
> What I missed on the original patch before committing it (mea culpa) is
> that the SSL part is neither documented nor tested properly (the tests
> only check that it is disallowed on a secured SSLSocket, not that it
> works on a connected-but-not-secured-yet SSLSocket object).
Bill, do you know?
> The absence of proper tests and documentation is the main reason I'm tempted
> to just revert those parts of the patch that touch the ssl module and its
> tests.
Then perhaps raise NotImplementedError, so that people know it's deliberate and not an oversight. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-08-23 12:20:46 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, exarkun, ncoghlan, janssen, therve, vstinner, jackdied, baikie, giampaolo.rodola, synapse, Andrew.Grover, wiml, neologix, rosslagerwall, python-dev, brian |
2011-08-23 12:20:46 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1314102046.49.0.948085616687.issue6560@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-08-23 12:20:45 | pitrou | link | issue6560 messages |
2011-08-23 12:20:45 | pitrou | create | |
|