On 29/12/2007, Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> > Anyone else who has ever taken issue with the 1.0 specification,
> > please add any other things which you think would be reasonable.
> > Include links to mailing list archives where issue may have previousl
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> [...]
>
> I have created the page:
>
> http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Amendments_1.0
>
> I added the obvious candidates.
>
Thanks.
> Anyone else who has ever taken issue with the 1.0 specification,
> please add any other things which you think would be reasonable.
>
On 27/12/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:36 AM 12/27/2007 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> >Due to this inactivity at least, some I guess would like to see the
> >1.1 specification created or at least an amendment to 1.0 to at least
> >adjust points in the original specifica
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> [...]
>
> Informally, OTOH, playing with 2.0 prototypes should be pretty
> informative, too.
>
In my WSGI implementation for Nginx I started with the 2.0 draft, since
the code flow is more simpler.
However, now that I have implemented 1.0, it's a bit hard to add s
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> At 04:15 PM 12/26/2007 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>> On 26/12/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > At 12:28 PM 12/24/2007 +0100, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> > >By the way: isn't it better to first release a WSGI 1.1 before
>> > >jumping to a (incompatib
At 09:36 AM 12/27/2007 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>Due to this inactivity at least, some I guess would like to see the
>1.1 specification created or at least an amendment to 1.0 to at least
>adjust points in the original specification that were in hindsight
>wrong or impractical, plus allow for
On 27/12/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:15 PM 12/26/2007 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> >On 26/12/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > At 12:28 PM 12/24/2007 +0100, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> > > >By the way: isn't it better to first release a WSGI 1.1 befor
At 04:15 PM 12/26/2007 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>On 26/12/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 12:28 PM 12/24/2007 +0100, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> > >By the way: isn't it better to first release a WSGI 1.1 before
> > >jumping to a (incompatible) WSGI 2.0?
> >
> > Better for w
On 26/12/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:28 PM 12/24/2007 +0100, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> >By the way: isn't it better to first release a WSGI 1.1 before
> >jumping to a (incompatible) WSGI 2.0?
>
> Better for whom, and for what purpose?
As has been pointed out before, the m
At 12:28 PM 12/24/2007 +0100, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>By the way: isn't it better to first release a WSGI 1.1 before
>jumping to a (incompatible) WSGI 2.0?
Better for whom, and for what purpose?
___
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG@python.org
Web SIG: http:
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> [...]
>> There is also a little problem in the "The start_response() Callable"
>> chapter, in this phrase:
>>
>> """The start_response callable must not actually transmit the response
>> headers. Instead, it must store them for the server or gateway to
>> transmit only
At 01:27 PM 12/20/2007 +0100, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>Hi.
>
>It seems that there is a little error in the WSGI spec.
>
>In the "Specification Details" chapter there is this note:
>
>"""(Note: the application must invoke the start_response() callable
>before the iterable yields its first body string,
On 20 Dec 2007, at 07:27, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> What's wrong is that the invocation of start_response may be performed
> at any iteration of the iterable, as long as the application yields
> empty strings.
In what context? I suspect that's an error in a particular
implementation, not in the s
Hi.
It seems that there is a little error in the WSGI spec.
In the "Specification Details" chapter there is this note:
"""(Note: the application must invoke the start_response() callable
before the iterable yields its first body string, so that the server can
send the headers before any body c
14 matches
Mail list logo
