Message142812
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
Andrew.Grover, baikie, brian, exarkun, giampaolo.rodola, jackdied, janssen, ncoghlan, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, rosslagerwall, synapse, therve, vstinner, wiml |
| Date |
2011年08月23日.12:20:45 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.0581313e-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年08月23日 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年08月23日 12:20:46 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1314102046.49.0.948085616687.issue6560@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年08月23日 12:20:45 | pitrou | link | issue6560 messages |
| 2011年08月23日 12:20:45 | pitrou | create |
|