Jim Fulton added the comment: >> Yury, I'm curious what you think the socket argument to create_connection is >> about. > > :) The current intended purpose of create_connection is to create a client > connection. You're proposing to add a new argument -- server_side -- which I > think will confuse the users of create_connection.
Perhaps. I'll note that the word "client" appears nowhere in the documentation of create_connection. I needed a way to wrap a socket and create_connection took one. Wrapping a server socket seemed to be to be the most likely use case for it. <shrug> > > What I'm saying is that we may consider creating a low-level > loop.wrap_socket, which would be generic and suitable to be used for both > client and server connections. We could even refactor create_connection to > use wrap_socket when 'sock' argument is passed to it. > > We already have something similar, although it's a private API -- > _make_socket_transport. Right. That's what I'm monkey-patching now to work around this, mostly as an experiment. > >> BTW, a problem with this proposal that I realized after submitting it is >> that it changes an API that has multiple implementations, including >> implementations outside of the Python codebase. Arguably, this would >> require a PEP, at which point the change is no-longer trivial. :) > > No need for a PEP; Guido's approval is enough usually. /me holds breath ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27392> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
