Message269546
| Author |
yselivanov |
| Recipients |
gvanrossum, j1m, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date |
2016年06月29日.19:14:24 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1467227664.69.0.946548945283.issue27392@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> Rather tham monkey-patching, in general I recommend just copying some
code from the asyncio library and calling that. In this case you'd be
copying a tiny bit of code from create_connection(). You'd still be
calling an internal API, _make_ssl_transport(), but your code would
still be less likely to change when some part of the asyncio library
changes than with monkey-patching.
But this kind of defeats the purpose of pluggable event loop etc. I can't implement all asyncio private APIs for uvloop. Once you start using that, your code can't run on uvloop or any other asyncio implementation.
> Maybe it's just culture shock? Or maybe we just need a public API that roughly represents the pair of calls to _make_ssl_transport() and _make_socket_transport() that are currently appearing both in _create_connection_transport() and in _accept_connection2(), plus some of the code around it that's a little tricky?
That's essentially what I wanted `loop.wrap_socket` to do (see msg269519) |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2016年06月29日 19:14:24 | yselivanov | set | recipients:
+ yselivanov, gvanrossum, vstinner, j1m |
| 2016年06月29日 19:14:24 | yselivanov | set | messageid: <1467227664.69.0.946548945283.issue27392@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016年06月29日 19:14:24 | yselivanov | link | issue27392 messages |
| 2016年06月29日 19:14:24 | yselivanov | create |
|