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 [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
