[#27003] [Bug #2422] splat operator fails on array of 1 element — Raul Parolari <redmine@...>

Bug #2422: splat operator fails on array of 1 element

12 messages 2009/12/02

[#27025] [Backport #2431] StringIO#{gets,readlines} with "" (paragraph mode) trims last "\n" — Hiroshi NAKAMURA <redmine@...>

Backport #2431: StringIO#{gets,readlines} with "" (paragraph mode) trims last "\n"

8 messages 2009/12/04

[#27086] [Feature #2454] OpenSSL has no maintainer — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>

Feature #2454: OpenSSL has no maintainer

16 messages 2009/12/07

[#27120] #to_enum ignores block? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>

Is #to_enum ignoring its block expected?

11 messages 2009/12/09

[#27135] better GC? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>

Could I put in a small plea for a better GC?

56 messages 2009/12/10
[#27136] Re: better GC? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/12/11

Hi,

[#27476] Re: better GC? — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2010/01/07

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:07:16AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#27477] Re: better GC? — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2010/01/07

Excerpts from Paul Brannan's message of Thu Jan 07 21:53:34 +0200 2010:

[#27563] Re: better GC? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2010/01/12

[#27199] [Backport #2488] thread usage can result in bad HANDLE — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Backport #2488: thread usage can result in bad HANDLE

12 messages 2009/12/16

[#27286] [Bug #2515] Array#select! — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #2515: Array#select!

17 messages 2009/12/22

[#27327] [Bug #2531] Ruby 1.8.7-p248 fails to cross-compile same version — Luis Lavena <redmine@...>

Bug #2531: Ruby 1.8.7-p248 fails to cross-compile same version

9 messages 2009/12/25

[#27360] [Feature #2542] URI lib should be updated to RFC 39886 — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Feature #2542: URI lib should be updated to RFC 39886

15 messages 2009/12/31

[ruby-core:27190] Re: [ANN] openssl-nonblock 0.2.1: moving towards compatibility with Ruby 1.9.2

From: Tony Arcieri <tony@...>
Date: 2009-12-16 07:04:43 UTC
List: ruby-core #27190
And perhaps an FYI as to why I am CCing ruby-core:

I am not sure how closely my implementation matches what's in Ruby 1.9.2.
My apologies for not further investigating this myself.  I would like to
match what's in Ruby 1.9.2. thoroughly and completely, so any comments as t=
o
how well I've matched the Ruby 1.9.2 API are most certainly welcome.

I implement the following methods as part of OpenSSL::SSL::SSLSocket:

   - connect_nonblock: connect to an SSL server
   - accept_nonblock: accept an SSL connection
   - read_nonblock(length): read up to the given length, but don=92t block
   - write_nonblock(data): write as much of the given data as possible
   without blocking

I raise the following exceptions:


   - IO::WaitReadable: this means OpenSSL needs to read more data to
   complete the
   given request. You should wait until the underlying IO object becomes
   readable again before retrying the request.
   - IO::WaitWritable similar to above, except OpenSSL is trying to write
   data to
   the IO object, and the IO object is not presently writable. You should
   wait
   until the object becomes writable again before retrying the request.

Does this sound like I am properly matching what is available in Ruby 1.9.2=
?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Tony Arcieri <tony@medioh.com> wrote:

> openssl-nonblock is a gem which enables non-blocking support in Ruby's
> OpenSSL classes by monkeypatching into the heart of some of its C code.
> It's vile, it's nasty, but it works!
>
> Install it with: gem install openssl-nonblock
>
> See the README on Github: http://github.com/tarcieri/openssl-nonblock
>
> Thanks to a patchfrom Young Hyun, the latest release now uses exceptions
> which aim to bridge compatibility with the non-blocking SSL support in th=
e
> forthcoming Ruby 1.9.2 release.  When a read or write is needed,
> openssl-nonblock now raises IO::WaitReadable or IO::WaitWritable, dependi=
ng
> on the IO event that needs waiting upon.
>
> This release also effectively disables itself on Ruby 1.9.2, deferring to
> the native implementation.  This means you can require openssl-nonblock a=
s a
> dependency on Ruby 1.8.6+, where it will bridge the gap, but on Ruby 1.9.=
2
> it will effectively shut itself off and let you use the core Ruby
> implementation directly.
>
> I have not probed the semantic gap between the gem and the core
> implementation in Ruby 1.9.2, so this release should be considered
> experimental.  You can expect a forthcoming 0.3.0 release which will ensu=
re,
> as best as possible, that the openssl-nonblock gem implements an API
> identical to what will be found in Ruby 1.9.2.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> --
> Tony Arcieri
> Medioh! A Kudelski Brand
>



--=20
Tony Arcieri
Medioh! A Kudelski Brand

In This Thread