Hi,
Graham Dumpleton schrieb:
So, rather than throw away completely the idea of bytes everywhere,
and rewrite the WSGI specification, we could instead say that the
existing conceptual idea of WSGI 1.0 is still valid, and just build on
top of it a translation interface to present that as
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Graham Dumpleton
graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Anyway, that is the thought. Should we be looking at WSGI as a set of
layers instead of assuming we have to push unicode into the gateway
interface layer?
+1
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Graham wrote:
So, rather than throw away completely the idea of bytes everywhere,
and rewrite the WSGI specification, we could instead say that the
existing conceptual idea of WSGI 1.0 is still valid, and just build on
top of it a translation interface to present that as unicode.
I don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
René Dudfield wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Aaron Watters arw1...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote:
So, rather than throw away completely the idea of bytes
everywhere,
and
--- On Wed, 9/23/09, René Dudfield ren...@gmail.com wrote:
Application portability is the main wsgi use case. I
think that
requires a number of things that wsgi doesn't provide -
wsgi knows
nothing of data stores for example. Application
portability is the
main thing we should be
At 02:43 PM 9/23/2009 +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Sorry, after having had a bit of think while eating lunch, I am going
to throw up another point of view on this whole issue. So, sit back
and be just a little bit concerned.
WSGI stands for Web Server GATEWAY Interface.
My understanding is
2009/9/24 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
Anyway, that is the thought. Should we be looking at WSGI as a set of
layers instead of assuming we have to push unicode into the gateway
interface layer?
These are not mutually exclusive options. However, the set of layers thing,
if I'm
At 11:47 AM 9/24/2009 +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
After almost two years of trying to get WSGI for Python 3.0 to fly, I really
do think it is time for me to give up. I did say a while back I would
try one last push and this has been it.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and I'm sorry if I
P.J. Eby wrote:
I, for one, *really* appreciate the work you put into all of this, as
I previously commented on your blog post. And I really hope you'll
hang in there. Thanks for all your hard work.
+...15 or so :)
My +s may not count for much, but they go to many others as well. I
Hi Graham,
Me being an outsider who contributed nothing to the process, I hope
you'll reconsider.
I really appreciate your work and I trusted the process more with you
in it.
Massimo
On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:11 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 11:47 AM 9/24/2009 +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
After
Sorry, after having had a bit of think while eating lunch, I am going
to throw up another point of view on this whole issue. So, sit back
and be just a little bit concerned.
WSGI stands for Web Server GATEWAY Interface.
My understanding is that right back at the beginning WSGI was purely
11 matches
Mail list logo
