Re: Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Jose Galvez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this is an interesting issue, because I would suspect that all our pylons applications will have to be converted as well as the pylons base code. At my workplace it's mostly web apps, wxPython apps, scientific calculation, TRAC, and we're considering Plone. So I think we'll wait until Pylons and wxPython have made the switch, and then convert our stuff. Pylons has acknowledged the issue but has not set any schedule for conversion. Both Pylons 1.0 and Python 3.0 are supposed to be released in late summer. Python 1.0 will drop the backward-compatibility cruft that accumulated as it evolved, so post-1.0 will be the best time to do the conversion. I know that there is going to be a program which will automate the translation, but not having used it I don't know what issues the translation will cause. Supposedly it will do the tedious work but you'll still have to review the code afterward for untypical or unusually dynamic cases that it may not catch. There will be a checklist of things to look for. Also, if you have a comprehensive test suite, you can just run it and see if it passes. The other big question is will eggs will they be able to tell the difference between python 2.x and 3.x since the code will be different I haven't heard anything about this. -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
Subj. Is Python 3000 migration planned? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
this is an interesting issue, because I would suspect that all our pylons applications will have to be converted as well as the pylons base code. I know that there is going to be a program which will automate the translation, but not having used it I don't know what issues the translation will cause. The other big question is will eggs will they be able to tell the difference between python 2.x and 3.x since the code will be different Jose On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subj. Is Python 3000 migration planned? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
Jose Galvez wrote: this is an interesting issue, because I would suspect that all our pylons applications will have to be converted as well as the pylons base code. I know that there is going to be a program which will automate the translation, but not having used it I don't know what issues the translation will cause. The other big question is will eggs will they be able to tell the difference between python 2.x and 3.x since the code will be different Jose On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subj. Is Python 3000 migration planned? There is more to it than just that. One problem is that the WSGI 1.0 specification is incompatible with Python 3.0. There were some preliminary discussions about how the specification would need to be changed, but no real final outcome. The discussions also probably didn't cover everything that would need to be changed in the specification. For example, wsgi.file_wrapper and how it would have to be changed wasn't discussed. The main issues were captured in: http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Amendments_1.0 Note though that that page is merely a collection of points discussed and is itself not any sort of official set of amendments to the WSGI specification. Personally I believe that WSGI 1.0 should die along with Python 2.X. I believe that WSGI 2.0 should be developed to replace it and the introduction of Python 3.0 would be a great time to do that given that people are going to have to change their code anyway and that code isn't then likely to be backward compatible with Python 2.X. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I believe that WSGI 1.0 should die along with Python 2.X. I believe that WSGI 2.0 should be developed to replace it and the introduction of Python 3.0 would be a great time to do that given that people are going to have to change their code anyway and that code isn't then likely to be backward compatible with Python 2.X. The sooner WSGI 2 becomes standard and WSGI 1 dies, the better. I don't understand why the basic premise of WSGI 2 has been around for two years but there's still no PEP, forcing people to write convoluted WSGI 1 middlewares and worry about edge cases. (WSGI 2, according to most proposals, simplifies the protocol to a straightforward function call: app(environ) = response, headers, content_iterable eliminating the callback function and .write method that were intended for asynchronous servers but turned out not to be suitable for that (or for anything else). -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [Web-SIG] Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
Graham Dumpleton wrote: Personally I believe that WSGI 1.0 should die along with Python 2.X. I believe that WSGI 2.0 should be developed to replace it and the introduction of Python 3.0 would be a great time to do that given that people are going to have to change their code anyway and that code isn't then likely to be backward compatible with Python 2.X. I don't believe it should just *die*. But I agree that this is a good time to revisit the specification. Especially since I have no idea how the change to unicode text would effect the WSGI environment. Having the environment hold bytes seems weird, but having it hold unicode is a substantial change. I don't think it will be as bad as Martijn thinks, because the libraries people use will probably have relatively few interface changes. Pylons and WebOb for instance should maintain largely the same interface (and they already expose unicode when possible). None of the changes proposed for WSGI 2 would change this. If I'm maintaining two versions of a library (one for Python 2, one for Python 3), then at least I'd like to get a little benefit out of it, and a revised WSGI would give some benefit. I think we might still need some kind of WSGI 1.1 to clarify what WSGI 1 (-like semantics) means in a Python 3.0 environment. Creating adapters from WSGI 1 to WSGI 2 should be easy enough that we could still offer some support for minimally-translated WSGI code. Ian --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
On Mar 4, 2008, at 3:17 AM, Leo wrote: Subj. Is Python 3000 migration planned? Yep, but not before Pylons 1.0, which will probably be out around the same time as Python 3. Cheers, Ben smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [Web-SIG] Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
On 05/03/2008, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Personally I believe that WSGI 1.0 should die along with Python 2.X. I believe that WSGI 2.0 should be developed to replace it and the introduction of Python 3.0 would be a great time to do that given that people are going to have to change their code anyway and that code isn't then likely to be backward compatible with Python 2.X. I think lots of Python projects reason this way: Python 3 transition is the right time to break backwards compatibility in our library/framework. It's understandable. Unfortunately this means that for people adjusting their code, they won't just have to deal with the large Python 3 transition, but also with lots of their frameworks and libraries making backwards-incompatible changes. That's unfortunate, as that means any automatic conversion strategy using the py2to3 script won't be possible, and there won't be any way to keep libraries in transition working in both Python 2 and 3 for a while (which is Guido's plan), as their dependencies don't support it. In the case of code which directly talks to the interface defined by WSGI specification I very much doubt the py2to3 script will help. This is because for WSGI to work with Python 3.0 there needs to be a change from use of string type objects to byte string type objects. I would suspect that py2to3 is only get help in any sort of automated way with the fact that a string object becomes unicode aware, not where with WSGI the code would have to change to use and deal with a different type of object completely. The implications of this change to a byte string type object are going to be much more complicated. What I fear is that if Python 3.0 isn't used as a trigger to push out WSGI 2.0, we will end up being stuck with WSGI 1.0 forever and there will never ever be any momentum to updating it even though a range of deficiencies and shortcomings have been identified in the specification as far as the way it is drafted, with the functionality it provides and how that functionality is described as needing to be implemented. I'd rather not see another XML-RPC where in practice it was a good first attempt, but with a little bit of tweaking would have made it so much better, but still keep its simplicity. And no I don't mean SOAP, that went too far. Problem with XML-RPC from what I saw at the time is that the original author had a lot invested in software that used the original XML-RPC and he wasn't going to budge as he didn't want to have to change his own systems based on it. With Python 3.0 people are going to have to change their code anyway and so it is an ideal time to push to a new version of WSGI specification which fixes its warts and eliminates the oddities it had to support certain legacy systems, something which is now not seen as necessary. Also, for most systems that use WSGI it would be quite minimal impact, as they often use it merely as a bridge to some existing web server interface. Thus changes would be very localised. Even something like Paste/Pylons hides a lot of what is WSGI behind its own veneer, for example WebOb and its predecessor and so higher layers may not even be affected much. As much as I'd like to see everything move to a better WSGI 2.0, if there are components which people don't want to update, then a WSGI 2.0 to 1.0 bridging middleware can be used to adapt them. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [Web-SIG] Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I fear is that if Python 3.0 isn't used as a trigger to push out WSGI 2.0, we will end up being stuck with WSGI 1.0 forever and there will never ever be any momentum to updating it even though a range of deficiencies and shortcomings have been identified in the specification as far as the way it is drafted, with the functionality it provides and how that functionality is described as needing to be implemented. There's nothing keeping the Pylons/TurboGears/Paste cabal from defining our own protocol and using it. We have enough clout and enough projects that it could become WSGI 2 by default. Packages can support it alongside WSGI 1 or use a v2to1 wrapper. Maybe if we ask Ian reeeally nicely he'll make a spec and a Paste extension that implements it, and we can make a pylons.wsgi2app to go with it. I think Ian's more qualified than any of us to know what the spec should contain. If we keep it close to the emerging standard it'll be easily enough to merge the two when they finally get their act together and decide what they want. Though we should call it something other than WSGI 2. How about WSGI Rebellion? (whiskey rebellion), codename rebelwsgi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
