Author pitrou
Recipients Andrew.Grover, baikie, brian, exarkun, giampaolo.rodola, jackdied, janssen, ncoghlan, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, rosslagerwall, synapse, therve, vstinner, wiml
Date 2011-08-23.12:20:45
SpamBayes Score 4.05813e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1314102046.49.0.948085616687.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).

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.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-08-23 12:20:46pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, exarkun, ncoghlan, janssen, therve, vstinner, jackdied, baikie, giampaolo.rodola, synapse, Andrew.Grover, wiml, neologix, rosslagerwall, python-dev, brian
2011-08-23 12:20:46pitrousetmessageid: <1314102046.49.0.948085616687.issue6560@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-08-23 12:20:45pitroulinkissue6560 messages
2011-08-23 12:20:45pitroucreate