On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Ben Bangert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 29, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: >> So, it's about time that WebOb came to 1.0. For 1.0 I'd like to >> settle the API as much as possible. But I'd also like to move further >> to getting WebOb used for more frameworks. I don't expect that to >> happen before 1.0, but if there are API changes that will make that >> easier later, then maybe we can get those in. > > What happened to getting all the fixes and improvements Armin had for > the Request/Response in Werkzeug into Webob? Is that a 1.1 thing? > Could we at least get the API more similar for 1.0 even if the bug > fixes from Werkzeug's Request object aren't pulled in?
I'm not really aware of what those fixes are, or if they apply to WebOb (I suspect they don't). If there are specific API differences where they could be unified, well... we can discuss them. Talking with Armin, his biggest concerns have been around handling the request body (which is tricky at best; Wekzeug is more naive but less likely to be unperformant; rather it just won't work in these difficult situations). If there are nasty situations, I hope they can be fixed in WebOb, though I'd like to make everything Work, even in cases that aren't a priority for Wekzeug (mostly related to contention for the request body, as with middleware). Another thing Armin specifically mentioned is that he doesn't like that all WebOb requests are mutable. He prefers the Werkzeug setup where the base request object is basically read-only, and there is a subclass that can be written to. First, that would be rather hard to do with WebOb (maybe a read-only flag would be possible, but the functionality would be there regardless, only explicitly disabled via a flag), and secondly I don't particular agree with him on this matter, and I don't think there's a strong justification for removing this functionality (I am of a mind that if you don't want to modify the request, then don't do it). If there are other things I'm not aware of them; you'll have to list them more specifically. -- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org | http://topplabs.org/civichacker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
