The whole subject of socket and SSL support came up at a lunchtime chat on developers day (and my jetlagged brain has totally failed to supply me the names of who I was talking to at the time...). Wouldn't it be better to rip the SSL support out entirely, and provide a way to hook the transport layer stuff on top of the standard socket object? Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never to late to have a happy childhood.
Anthony Baxter <anthony@ekit-inc.com> writes:
The whole subject of socket and SSL support came up at a lunchtime chat on developers day (and my jetlagged brain has totally failed to supply me the names of who I was talking to at the time...). Wouldn't it be better to rip the SSL support out entirely, and provide a way to hook the transport layer stuff on top of the standard socket object?
With OpenSSL? How do you make OpenSSL's internals use the Python socket object? Regards, Martin
"AB" == Anthony Baxter <anthony@ekit-inc.com> writes:
AB> The whole subject of socket and SSL support came up at a AB> lunchtime chat on developers day (and my jetlagged brain has AB> totally failed to supply me the names of who I was talking to at AB> the time...). Wouldn't it be better to rip the SSL support out AB> entirely, and provide a way to hook the transport layer stuff on AB> top of the standard socket object? It is certainly attractive to focus future development on a separate C extension module. The current SSL support was included because we thought it would be nice to allow people to open https URLs. The code itself is problematic for many reasons, not least of which is its very minimal feature set. But getting the right Python interface for a large library like OpenSSL is a big task. I think it's better suite for 3rd party libraries that the core (and such libraries do exist, though I've never used them). Jeremy
Jeremy Hylton wrote:
"AB" == Anthony Baxter <anthony@ekit-inc.com> writes:
AB> The whole subject of socket and SSL support came up at a AB> lunchtime chat on developers day (and my jetlagged brain has AB> totally failed to supply me the names of who I was talking to at AB> the time...). Wouldn't it be better to rip the SSL support out AB> entirely, and provide a way to hook the transport layer stuff on AB> top of the standard socket object?
It is certainly attractive to focus future development on a separate C extension module. The current SSL support was included because we thought it would be nice to allow people to open https URLs. The code itself is problematic for many reasons, not least of which is its very minimal feature set. But getting the right Python interface for a large library like OpenSSL is a big task. I think it's better suite for 3rd party libraries that the core (and such libraries do exist, though I've never used them).
FYI, I'm moving the SSL out of _socket and into _ssl.c. socket.py will then try to import _ssl, but move along if it cannot import that module for some reason. For true SSL support, you should look at M2Crypto. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Company & Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
participants (4)
-
Anthony Baxter -
Jeremy Hylton -
M.-A. Lemburg -
martin＠v.loewis.de