> Well... I would have expected this approach to yield a bigger reduction in code size. If it doesn't shrink the code, then I'm not sure it's worthwhile. What do you think?

I think the improved test coverage might still make it worthwhile. All tests are now exercising the SSLObject methods via SSLSocket. Also it's more future proof as the risk is less that you'd add a new method to SSLSocket without adding it to SSLObject as well.

It's not clear cut. Either way is fine I think.

> (also, why do you have to add an "owner" attribute?)

That is to support the first argument passed to the sever name callback set with set_servername_callback(). This will be an SSLSocket or an SSLObject instance depending on who's using it.