(original) (raw)

On 10 Sep 2014 02:11, "Christian Heimes" <christian@python.org> wrote:
\>
\> On 09.09.2014 05:03, Nick Coghlan wrote:
\> >
\> > On 9 Sep 2014 10:48, "Jim J. Jewett" <jimjjewett@gmail.com
\> > jimjjewett@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