Re: [Python-Dev] Backup plan: WSGI 1 Addenda and wsgiref update for Py3
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:09:44 -0400 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com 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 this allows the Web situation in Python 3 to be improved faster and with less hassle then all the better. There's something strange in your proposal: it mentions WSGI 2 at several places while there's no guarantee about what WSGI 2 will be (is there?). Regards Antoine. ___ 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] Backup plan: WSGI 1 Addenda and wsgiref update for Py3
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:09 AM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: After all, even if PEP 333 is ultimately replaced by PEP 444, it's probably a good idea to have *some* sort of WSGI 1-ish thing available on Python 3, with bytes/unicode and other matters settled. Indeed. Though I generally like the direction that PEP 444 is going in, I know that writing specs is *HARD*. I think having something that works on Python 3 in time for the 3.2 release is a much bigger deal than having an WSGI2 (or whatever) done. This is classic the perfect is the enemy of the good territory. Let's get the good done and *then* spend time working on the perfect. Jacob ___ 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] Backup plan: WSGI 1 Addenda and wsgiref update for Py3
At 06:52 PM 9/21/2010 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:09:44 -0400 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com 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 this allows the Web situation in Python 3 to be improved faster and with less hassle then all the better. There's something strange in your proposal: it mentions WSGI 2 at several places while there's no guarantee about what WSGI 2 will be (is there?). Sorry - WSGI 2 should be read as shorthand for, whatever new spec succeeds PEP 333, whether that's PEP 444 or something else. It just means that any new spec that doesn't have to be backward-compatible can (and should) more thoroughly address the issue in question. ___ 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
