On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Burrows <[email protected]> wrote: > > Taking all these together, I'm left with either doing nothing (because > of the fallback) or providing a small (non-standard, because there is > no standard) middleware component for those servers that care about > the wasted/failed requests. That's ok - like I said earlier, I'm not > sure how serious this is from an implementation perspective but it > would be nice if the spec could cover this issue at some point.
If you want to change the WSGI spec, you'd have to propose it on the web-sig. The spec is in flux because they're still deciding how to make it compatible with Python 3 (i.e., whether the headers should be decoded, and what if the encoding is missing/wrong), and how much to simplify it (i.e., getting rid of 'start_response' and the '.write' method). Of course, that has been going on for so long that some people are wondering if we should just give up on WSGI and implement something de facto in our family of frameworks. But your change is essentially a bugfix, so maybe it can be slipped into to the next version of the WSGI spec. -- 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.
