Re: [Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] Backup plan: WSGI 1 Addenda and wsgiref update for Py3
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:09 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote: While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3 stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle out implementation questions. If a WSGI-1-compatible protocol seems more sensible to folks, I'm personally happy to defer discussion on PEP 444 or any other backwards-incompatible proposal. - C ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] Backup plan: WSGI 1 Addenda and wsgiref update for Py3
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:09 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote: While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3 stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle out implementation questions. If a WSGI-1-compatible protocol seems more sensible to folks, I'm personally happy to defer discussion on PEP 444 or any other backwards-incompatible proposal. I think both make sense, making WSGI 1 sensible for Python 3 (as well as other small errata like the size hint) doesn't detract from PEP 444 at all, IMHO. -- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] Backup plan: WSGI 1 Addenda and wsgiref update for Py3
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:09 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: The Python 3 specific changes are to use: * ``bytes`` for I/O streams in both directions * ``str`` for environ keys and values * ``bytes`` for arguments to start_response() and write() This is the only thing that seems odd to me -- it seems like the response should be symmetric with the request, and the request in this case uses str for headers (status being header-like), and bytes for the body. Otherwise this seems good to me, the only other major errata I can think of are all listed in the links you included. * text stream for wsgi.errors In other words, strings in, bytes out for headers, bytes for bodies. In general, only changes that don't break Python 2 WSGI implementations are allowed. The changes should also not break mod_wsgi on Python 3, but may make some Python 3 wsgi applications non-compliant, despite continuing to function on mod_wsgi. This is because mod_wsgi allows applications to output string headers and bodies, but I am ruling that option out because it forces every piece of middleware to have to be tested with arbitrary combinations of strings and bytes in order to test compliance. If you want your application to output strings rather than bytes, you can always use a decorator to do that. (And a sample one could be provided in wsgiref.) I agree allowing both is not ideal. -- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] Backup plan: WSGI 1 Addenda and wsgiref update for Py3
At 12:55 PM 9/21/2010 -0400, Ian Bicking wrote: On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Chris McDonough mailto:chr...@plope.comchr...@plope.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:09 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote: While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3 stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle out implementation questions. If a WSGI-1-compatible protocol seems more sensible to folks, I'm personally happy to defer discussion on PEP 444 or any other backwards-incompatible proposal. I think both make sense, making WSGI 1 sensible for Python 3 (as well as other small errata like the size hint) doesn't detract from PEP 444 at all, IMHO. Yep. I agree. I do, however, want to get these amendments settled and make sure they get carried over to whatever spec is the successor to PEP 333. I've had a lot of trouble following exactly what was changed in 444, and I'm a tad worried that several new ambiguities may be being introduced. So, solidifying 333 a bit might be helpful if it gives a good baseline against which to diff 444 (or whatever). ___ 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
