On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 12:01:41 +0100 Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: > In principle, sure. In practice, that means most of our users don’t use those > features and so we don’t get any feedback on whether they’re good solutions > to the problem.
On bugs.python.org we get plenty of feedback from people using Python 3's features, and we have been for years. Your concern would have been very valid in the Python 3.2 timeframe, but I don't think it is anymore. > All of this is related. I wrote a very, very long email initially and deleted > it all because it was just too long to expect any normal human being to read > it, but the TL;DR here is that we also want to support async/await, and doing > so requires a memory BIO object. async/await doesn't require a memory BIO object. For example, Tornado supports async/await (*) even though it doesn't use a memory BIO object for its SSL layer. And asyncio started with a non-memory BIO SSL implementation while still using "yield from". (*) Despite the fact that Tornado's own coroutines are yield-based generators. > As to Tornado, the biggest concern there is that there is no support for > composing the TLS over non-TCP sockets as far as I am aware. The wrapped > socket approach is not suitable for some kinds of stream-based I/O that users > really should be able to use with Requests (e.g. UNIX pipes). Hmm, why would you use TLS on UNIX pipes except as an academic experiment? Tornado is far from a full-fledged networking package like Twisted, but its HTTP(S) support should be very sufficient (understandably, since it is the core use case for it). 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/archive%40mail-archive.com
