(original) (raw)

On 23 Jul 2014 07:28, "Antoine Pitrou" <antoine@python.org> wrote:
\>
\> Le 22/07/2014 17:03, Alex Gaynor a écrit :
\>
\>>
\>> The question is:
\>>
\>> a) Should we backport weak referencing \_socket.sockets (changing the structure
\>> of the module seems overly invasive, albeit completely backwards
\>> compatible)?
\>> b) Does anyone know why weak references are used in the first place? The commit
\>> message just alludes to fixing a leak with no reference to an issue.
\>
\>
\> Because :
\> - the SSLSocket has a strong reference to the ssl object (self.\_sslobj)
\> - self.\_sslobj having a strong reference to the SSLSocket would mean both would only get destroyed on a GC collection
\>
\> I assume that's what "leak" means here :-)
\>
\> As for 2.x, I don't see why you couldn't just continue using a strong reference.

As Antoine says, if the cycle already exists in Python 2 (and it sounds like it does), we can just skip backporting the weak reference change.

I'll also give the Fedora Python list a heads up about your repo to see if anyone there can help you with the backport.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
\> Regards
\>
\> Antoine.
\>
\>
\>
\> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\> 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/ncoghlan%40gmail.com