[Python-Dev] [PEP466] SSLSockets, and sockets, _socketobjects oh my! (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue Jul 22 23:44:54 CEST 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [PEP466] SSLSockets, and sockets, _socketobjects oh my!
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [PEP466] SSLSockets, and sockets, _socketobjects oh my!
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 23 Jul 2014 07:28, "Antoine Pitrou" <antoine at 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 at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140723/f1a7aa07/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [PEP466] SSLSockets, and sockets, _socketobjects oh my!
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [PEP466] SSLSockets, and sockets, _socketobjects oh my!
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]