Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > We can leave these undocumented at the Python level if you prefer.
I'd rather that indeed. If there's a specific need, we can expose them as a separate issue. > Maybe just "SSLInstance", would that be better than "SSLObject"? That doesn't sound much better :-) Ok, let's keep SSLObject then. > I believe that the overall _ssl/ssl code could be simplified by: [snip] That would be nice. Would that also handle e.g. socket timeouts? > To use SSLObject as a mixin it would have to be aware of these two uses of > its subclasses. It could be done but I don't think it's 100% clean either. Fair enough. We just have to make sure to implement and test new APIs twice (e.g the version() method in issue20421). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21965> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
