I'm more or less building atop flup as it is, however I plan to shed anything not related to FastCGI.
For me it's a chance to get down and dirty with raw protocols again... I do agree there is a shorter path to just applying Django's "fixes" to a fork of flup. -- Curtis On 19 July 2013 22:14, Juan Luis Boya <[email protected]> wrote: > For those who are keen to keep support for FastCGI, would you be >> interested in helping me develop/maintain a Pure Python >> FastCGI->WSGI(Django-specific) publisher package? >> > > That exists and it's called flup. The code base is relatively small. What > about simply forking it to something like flup2 and fixing the issues? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
