On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
>
>> > I'd point out that the "ssl" module itself seems to have evolved from a
>> > trivial wrapper API (in the 2.5 docs I can only find a single
>> > 3-parameter function, socket.ssl()) to a more comprehensive API in 3.2,
>> > because people ultimately need the functionalities.
>> > (and yet the ssl API in 3.2 is still much less featureful than M2Crypto
>> > or pyOpenSSL are)
>>
>> I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean. Are you saying it should
>> start as a comprehensive wrapper because that's what ssl is headed
>> towards or that it should start simply because such functionality will
>> evolve organically as the need arises?
>
> The former. Evolving organically has quite a few issues, because the
> original API may be far from ideal to build on, and yet you have to
> ensure compatibility with that API.
> ("comprehensive" doesn't have to equate "exhaustive" of course. But any
> API which tries to simplify things too much might also be a roadblock
> when it comes to exposing more features)

Well, like I say, I'm willing to contribute what time and ability
allow. Are you thinking of adding a comprehensive wrapper to the ssl
module?

Geremy Condra