[Noah]
> +1 on the iterator, although I might just like the idea and might be missing
> something important. It seems like there are a lot of powerful things being
> developed with generators in mind, and there are some nifty things you can
> do with them like the contextlib example:
> http://doc
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 18:46, Eric Larson wrote:
> Seeing as this tuple idea is low hanging fruit, I went ahead and
> created a small bit of middleware for making the conversion.
>
> http://bitbucket.org/elarson/pack/wiki/Home
>
> Hope it helps!
If I'm not missing some quirk about some older Pyt
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Robert Brewer wrote:
> Alan Kennedy wrote:
>> For those of you at PyCon, there is a WSGI Open Space @ 5pm today
>> (Friday).
>>
>> The sub-title of the open space is "Does WSGI need revision"?
>
> Hi all,
>
> We had a good meeting but it was too short. We pla
At 03:43 PM 3/30/2009 +0300, Sergey Schetinin wrote:
Did you consider a variation that eliminates the start_response but
returns status and headers as first item of the iterable? Considering
how response is usually generated it could save some code in some
cases and wouldn't add any overhead in o
(Sorry if this is a duplicate message).
> Topic: Return a tuple of (status, headers, body)
>
>
> That is, get rid of the start_response callable. The general consensus
> was that this is a simple, but powerful improvement, which Rack/Jack
> have dem
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 14:14, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> 2009/3/30 Ionel Maries Cristian :
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:13, Graham Dumpleton
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> The problem with this is what happens if a WSGI middleware tries to do
>>> something with it. If the separate change is made to a
2009/3/30 Ionel Maries Cristian :
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:13, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> The problem with this is what happens if a WSGI middleware tries to do
>> something with it. If the separate change is made to allow string like
>> objects to be returned instead of only strin
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:13, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
[...]
> The problem with this is what happens if a WSGI middleware tries to do
> something with it. If the separate change is made to allow string like
> objects to be returned instead of only string objects, then its string
> like behaviour
2009/3/30 Robert Brewer :
> We had a smaller third meeting and answered more issues.
>
> Those present at the third meeting:
>
> * Mark Ramm (TG)
> * Mike Orr (Pylons)
> * Bob Brewer (CherryPy)
> * Glyph Lefkowitz (Twisted)
> * David Reid (Twisted)
> * Jean-Paul Calderone (Twisted)
>
> Contin
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:21:36 -0700, Robert Brewer wrote:
We had a smaller third meeting and answered more issues.
Hi all,
First, thanks for writing up these reports.
[snip]
Asynchronous WSGI support
-
Mostly non-existent. Fix it? Fork it? Drop it? Glyph seemed to t
On Mar 29, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Robert Brewer wrote:
In addition, a new environ key which indicates whether
%2F-slashes were decoded improperly or not would be beneficial.
Of course it's not "improper": the CGI spec (which WSGI incorporates
by reference) REQUIRES that decoding.
James
_
We had a smaller third meeting and answered more issues.
Those present at the third meeting:
* Mark Ramm (TG)
* Mike Orr (Pylons)
* Bob Brewer (CherryPy)
* Glyph Lefkowitz (Twisted)
* David Reid (Twisted)
* Jean-Paul Calderone (Twisted)
Continuing Topic: string type for PATH_INFO and SCRIP
I wrote:
> We had a good second meeting and answered more issues. My
understanding
> is that there is another BoF scheduled for tomorrow (Sunday). Check
the
> Open Space board for details.
My mistake. I'll put up an Open Space reservation for 5pm today ASAP.
Robert Brewer
fuman...@aminus.org
__
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Robert Brewer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We had a good second meeting and answered more issues. My understanding
> is that there is another BoF scheduled for tomorrow (Sunday). Check the
> Open Space board for details.
>
> Those present at the second meeting:
>
> * Mar
Hi all,
We had a good second meeting and answered more issues. My understanding
is that there is another BoF scheduled for tomorrow (Sunday). Check the
Open Space board for details.
Those present at the second meeting:
* Mark Ramm (TG)
* Mike Orr (Pylons)
* Bob Brewer (CherryPy)
* Ian Bickin
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> For those of you at PyCon, there is a WSGI Open Space @ 5pm today
> (Friday).
>
> The sub-title of the open space is "Does WSGI need revision"?
Hi all,
We had a good meeting but it was too short. We plan on having another
Open Space meeting at 5pm today (Saturday) to contin
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> 2009/3/28 Mark Ramm :
>> My thought is that we should do a couple things to the wsgi standard,
>> and then anything like the lifecycle methods gets addresse,d it should
>> be pushed into a "container" standard or something.
>>
>> I think R
2009/3/28 Mark Ramm :
> My thought is that we should do a couple things to the wsgi standard,
> and then anything like the lifecycle methods gets addresse,d it should
> be pushed into a "container" standard or something.
>
> I think Robert Brewer's WSGI Service Bus proposal that he made a
> couple
My thought is that we should do a couple things to the wsgi standard,
and then anything like the lifecycle methods gets addresse,d it should
be pushed into a "container" standard or something.
I think Robert Brewer's WSGI Service Bus proposal that he made a
couple years ago at PyCon needs a new na
2009/3/28 Alan Kennedy :
> Dear all,
>
> For those of you at PyCon, there is a WSGI Open Space @ 5pm today (Friday).
>
> The sub-title of the open space is "Does WSGI need revision"?
>
> An example: Philip Jenvey (http://dunderboss.blogspot.com/) raised the
> need for something akin to what Java fo
Dear all,
For those of you at PyCon, there is a WSGI Open Space @ 5pm today (Friday).
The sub-title of the open space is "Does WSGI need revision"?
An example: Philip Jenvey (http://dunderboss.blogspot.com/) raised the
need for something akin to what Java folks call "Lifecycle methods",
so that
21 matches
Mail list logo
