(original) (raw)

On 24 Jul 2014 05:37, "Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@gmail.com> wrote:
\>
\> Possible solutions are:
\>
\> \* Pass the SSLObject \*in addition\* to the \_socket.socket object to the C code.
\> This generates some additional divergence from the Python3 code, but is
\> probably basically straightforward.
\> \* Try to refactor the socket code in the same way as Python3 did, so we can
\> pass \*only\* the SSLObject here. This is some nasty scope creep for PEP466,
\> but would make the overall \_ssl.c diff smaller.
\> \* Some super sweet and simple thing I haven't thought of yet.
\>
\> Thoughts?

Wearing my "risk management" hat, option 1 sounds significantly more appealing than option 2 :)

Cheers,
Nick.