# \[ANN\] openssl-nonblock 0.2.1: moving towards compatibility with Ruby 1.9.2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [December 16, 2009, 7:59am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-openssl-nonblock-0-2-1-moving-towards-compatibility-with-ruby-1-9-2/180270 "2009-12-16T07:59:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![murfhy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@murfhy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/murfhy)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 7:59am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-openssl-nonblock-0-2-1-moving-towards-compatibility-with-ruby-1-9-2/180270/1 "2009-12-16T07:59:34Z")
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: [GitHub - tarcieri/openssl-nonblock: Non-blocking I/O support for Ruby OpenSSL](http://github.com/tarcieri/openssl-nonblock) Thanks to a patchfrom Young H., the latest release now uses exceptions which aim to bridge compatibility with the non-blocking SSL support in the forthcoming Ruby 1.9.2 release. When a read or write is needed, openssl-nonblock now raises IO::WaitReadable or IO::WaitWritable, depending 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 as 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 ensure, as best as possible, that the openssl-nonblock gem implements an API identical to what will be found in Ruby 1.9.2. Enjoy! ---
**Author:** ![murfhy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@murfhy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/murfhy)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-openssl-nonblock-0-2-1-moving-towards-compatibility-with-ruby-1-9-2/180270/2 "2009-12-16T08:05:25Z")
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 to 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’t 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? ---
**Author:** ![murfhy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@murfhy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/murfhy)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 3:17am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-openssl-nonblock-0-2-1-moving-towards-compatibility-with-ruby-1-9-2/180270/3 "2010-01-05T03:17:54Z")
On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Tony A. wrote: > 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? I compared the behavior of openssl-nonblock to Ruby 1.9.2 (but not exhaustively), and the main issue I saw was the use of a different underlying exception object. Ruby 1.9.2 raises an SSLError while openssl-nonblock raises its own ReadAgain/WriteAgain object extended with IO::WaitReadable/IO::WaitWritable. Now, if all one cares about is being notified that the operation would block (that is, if one is just rescuing WaitReadable/WaitWritable), then openssl-nonblock and Ruby 1.9.2 are indistinguishable. However, it’s possible for someone to rescue SSLError directly, and then the difference shows up. I tried creating a patch to make openssl-nonblock use SSLError just like Ruby 1.9.2, but that seemed like it was going to be more work than I expected (partly because somethings are defined static inside the OpenSSL extension). I’m not sure how important this difference is in practice, because it mainly affects a narrow use case–running a program written for Ruby 1.9.2 or later on an older Ruby (that is, backporting features). That’s a different use case than supporting nonblocking OpenSSL I/O on older Ruby versions in a _forward_ compatible manner (obviously, for portability, such code should not rescue ReadAgain/WriteAgain, only WaitReadable/WaitWritable). –Young ---
**Author:** ![murfhy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@murfhy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/murfhy)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-openssl-nonblock-0-2-1-moving-towards-compatibility-with-ruby-1-9-2/180270/4 "2009-12-16T08:31:10Z")
2009/12/16 Tony A. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > 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 to > how well I’ve matched the Ruby 1.9.2 API are most certainly welcome. Use the tests comes with Ruby 1.9.2.