Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > 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. ---------- nosy: +janssen _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6560> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
