On Sep 15, 2010, at 6:44 PM, James Mills <prolo...@shortcircuit.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> I don't see what we gain by holding up the 3.2 release. Some writing a >> Web application will need third-party modules anyway, so downloading >> wsgi3ref shouldn't be too painful. > > I agree with you. Further, is wsgiref actually heavily used by web developers > and or web framework developers at all ? I would tend to think that > web developers > might be more interested in using some of the larger more popular web > frameworks > such as: TurboGears, Django, Pylons, Cherrypy, etc. > > i don't think a Python 3.2 release should be held up because of wsgiref. > > cheers > James > It's not just wsgiref. We need to talk with the web-sig participants to work out any other issues in addition to wsgiref which have been contentious (str vs byte methods, bytearrays, stdlib issues) or at least hear from the group that these issues are resolved. My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use in web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting porting target for web projects/libraries and frameworks. If it was just wsgiref, it would be one thing, but based on conversations with members of web-sig in the past, it's not. I can't clearly communicate everything they've mentioned in the past for them. jesse _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
