On 28/06/2021 20.36, Brendan Barnwell wrote: > On 2021-06-28 07:03, Thomas Grainger wrote: >>> >but in this case the object is security sensitive, and security >>> should be much more rigorous in ensuring correctness. >> It looks like there's a consensus being reached, should I create a bpo? > > If we're going to make backwards-incompatible changes to SSLContext, > might it be a good idea to make a cleaner, more Pythonic API while we're > at it so that people are discouraged from doing attribute-setting at > all? Why not have the class accept only valid options at creation time > and raise an error if any unexpected arguments are passed? Is there > even any reason to allow changing the SSLContext parameters after > creation, or could we just freeze them on instance creation and make > people create a separate context if they want a different configuration? > I think any of these would be better than the current setup that > expects people to adjust the options by manually setting attributes one > by one after instance creation.
There won't be any backwards incompatible changes to SSLContext in near future. There might be an additional API based on PEP 543 [1] configuration object if we find time to implement it for 3.11. Christian [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0543/#configuration _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/QSHMLYTJE3PKRTJLXXJKJFITRZRJFAMI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
