On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: > 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).
The fixes I was aware of that Armin has worked around in Werkzeug: - Multipart parsing that doesn't suck, better file upload handling - Fixed bug in Python stdlib regarding handling of 'bad' cookies. Ie, if Python is parsing 4 cookies, and the first one is 'invalid', Python *stops parsing* the rest! This is bad as several webapp systems use the character Python doesn't like, so having it on the same domain as a Python app (not werkzeug) means cookies just disappear since Python stops parsing them. I think there was one or two other things related to having a cgi.fieldstorage that doesn't suck, and some other header parsing that Werkzeug might handle better. But these are what I'd consider critical fixes for getting into WebOb. - Ben --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
