[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Mike added the comment: My pleasure. And thank you for backporting on my behalf :) -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mail

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Zachary Ware added the comment: Backported. Thanks for the patch, Mike! -- resolution: -> fixed stage: backport needed -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Zachary Ware added the comment: New changeset aa27f0e94f4d9c5ef589984dc2b32d856e8e038f by Zachary Ware in branch '3.5': [3.5] bpo-30160: Clarify intended usage of wfile (gh-1300) (GH-1792) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/aa27f0e94f4d9c5ef589984dc2b32d856e8e038f -- __

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Zachary Ware added the comment: New changeset a2a9984a278d2ee945e91ce13e000e571794fc24 by Zachary Ware in branch '3.6': [3.6] bpo-30160: Clarify intended usage of wfile (gh-1300) (GH-1793) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/a2a9984a278d2ee945e91ce13e000e571794fc24 -- nosy: +zach

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Changes by Zachary Ware : -- pull_requests: +1875 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Changes by Zachary Ware : -- pull_requests: +1876 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

R. David Murray added the comment: Pinging the issue is exactly what you needed to do :) As I said on the PR, I'm not set up to do backports yet so hopefully you or someone else will do those. -- stage: -> backport needed versions: +Python 3.5, Python 3.6, Python 3.7

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

R. David Murray added the comment: New changeset a083c8ee6cb89ca573fe10c4c1922e2fa69ceaa3 by R. David Murray (jugglinmike) in branch 'master': bpo-30160: Clarify intended usage of wfile (gh-1300) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/a083c8ee6cb89ca573fe10c4c1922e2fa69ceaa3 -- ___

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Mike added the comment: It's been about a month since I heard back, so I thought I'd comment here just in case this slipped of anyone's radar. Is there anything I can doto help this land? -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Mike added the comment: My CLA signature has been verified, but based on the most recent comments, I'm not sure if something needs to change in this patch. Is there anything I can doto help this land? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

R. David Murray added the comment: My impression is that the sentence is there because you are acting directly on the raw byte stream, which you are not in the other cases. (Well, rfile, but that's reading, so what you do there doesn't affect the wire protocol you send). -- _

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Martin Panter added the comment: The “Proper adherence” sentence has always bothered me. Why does “wfile” have to adhere, but not other other APIs (rfile, send_header, etc)? I wonder if the sentence is useful at all. (Of course you have to use HTTP to operate with HTTP clients.) Perhaps it wa

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Changes by Mike : -- pull_requests: +1407 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.o

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

Mike added the comment: That would certainly satisfy me! -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: htt

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

R. David Murray added the comment: I would like to say that the latter interpretation is "obviously" correct, except that it clearly wasn't obvious to you. The fact that it "contains the output stream" I would have thought was pretty clear: if you are writing to it, you are responsible for an

[issue30160] BaseHTTPRequestHandler.wfile: supported usage unclear

New submission from Mike: The documentation for BaseHTTPRequestHandler explicitly prohibits protocol violations when writing to the `wfile` stream: > BaseHTTPRequestHandler has the following instance variables: > > [...] > > **`wfile`** > > > Contains the output stream for writing a response bac