On 10 Sep 2014 02:11, "Christian Heimes" <christ...@python.org> wrote: > > On 09.09.2014 05:03, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > > On 9 Sep 2014 10:48, "Jim J. Jewett" <jimjjew...@gmail.com > > <mailto:jimjjew...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> I assume that adding _unverified_urlopen or urlopen(context=...) do > >> provide incremental improvements compatible with the eventual full > >> opt-in. If so, adding them is probably reasonable, but I think the > >> PEP should explicitly list all such approved half-measures as a guard > >> against API feature creep. > > > > From Guido's and your feedback, I think we may need two things to > > approve this for 3.4.2 (putting 2.7 aside for now): > > > > 1. "context" parameter support in urllib.request (to opt out on a > > per-call basis) > > 2. a documented way to restore the old behaviour via sitecustomize > > (which may involve monkeypatching) > > What's with our plan to introduce sslcustomize? Is the idea for a > configuration module and named contexts off the table?
I'd still like to do that for 3.5+ as the proper long term fix, but I don't think it's necessary for 2.7 or 3.4. Cheers, Nick. > > > For reference: > > I came up with the idea to introduce the module "sslcustomize" similar > to sitecustomize. Contrary to sitecustomize the module is imported at > the end of the ssl module. > > Based on my idea Nick proposed another addition to the SSL module. He > proposed a ssl.named_contexts mapping from module names to factory > functions that create SSLContext objects. > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/149292 > > I still prefer the general idea over the monkey patching idea because it > provides a clean but simple interface for structured configuration. > Monkey patching of stdlib modules is ugly and error-prone. > > Christian
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
