Author ncoghlan
Recipients Andrew.Grover, baikie, brian, exarkun, giampaolo.rodola, jackdied, ncoghlan, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, rosslagerwall, synapse, therve, vstinner, wiml
Date 2011-08-23.12:02:23
SpamBayes Score 3.48714e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1314100944.62.0.000597414232746.issue6560@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
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).

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.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-08-23 12:02:24ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, exarkun, pitrou, therve, vstinner, jackdied, baikie, giampaolo.rodola, synapse, Andrew.Grover, wiml, neologix, rosslagerwall, python-dev, brian
2011-08-23 12:02:24ncoghlansetmessageid: <1314100944.62.0.000597414232746.issue6560@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-08-23 12:02:24ncoghlanlinkissue6560 messages
2011-08-23 12:02:23ncoghlancreate