Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 00:12, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > >> On 4 Jan 2016, at 11:27 PM, Cory Benfield > > wrote: >> >> All, >> >> **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we do >> it at all?** >> >> It’s a new year, and that means it’s t

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Forwarding this message from the django-developers list. Hi Cory, I’m not subscribed to web-sig but I read the discussion there. Feel free to forward my answer to the group if you think it’s useful. I have roughly the same convictions as Graham Dumpleton. If you want to support HTTP/2 and WebS

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 8:40 PM, Cory Benfield wrote: > > >> On 5 Jan 2016, at 00:12, Graham Dumpleton > > wrote: >> >> >>> On 4 Jan 2016, at 11:27 PM, Cory Benfield >> > wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Hi, I just want to reply to this because I think many people seem to be missing why things are done in a certain way. Especially if the appear to be odd. On 05/01/2016 12:26, Cory Benfield wrote: 1. WSGI is prone to header injection vulnerabilities issues by designdue to the conversion of H

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 10:57 PM, Graham Dumpleton > wrote: > > >> On 5 Jan 2016, at 10:26 PM, Cory Benfield > > wrote: >> >> Forwarding this message from the django-developers list. >> >> Hi Cory, >> >> I’m not subscribed to web-sig but I read the discussion there. Fe

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 10:26 PM, Cory Benfield wrote: > > Forwarding this message from the django-developers list. > > Hi Cory, > > I’m not subscribed to web-sig but I read the discussion there. Feel free to > forward my answer to the group if you think it’s useful. > > I have roughly the same

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Just to add my 2c - as another Django developer, I agree completely with Aymeric here. My own experience was that the HTTP handling done by WSGI (especially URL handing, HTTP header mangling, os.environ as a destination - all due to CGI compatibility - and semi-broken unicode handling) only mad

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Hi, On 05/01/2016 13:09, Luke Plant wrote: Just to add my 2c - as another Django developer, I agree completely with Aymeric here. My own experience was that the HTTP handling done by WSGI (especially URL handing, HTTP header mangling, os.environ as a destination - all due to CGI compatibility -

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Cory Benfield wrote: **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we do it at all?** TL;DR: WSGI itself should have have some light cleanups and bug fixes and have de-facto behaviors formalized and then be blessed as the treasure that it is. A new

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Hi all, Hopefully this discussion won't turn in another useless political discussion :) About the need of a new spec aka WSGI 2 or whatever the name you want to I would say it's definitely needed. But contrary to the others I don't think it has to be that new, or breaking. If you follow closely t

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:09 AM, chris.d...@gmail.com wrote: > > As someone who writes their WSGI applications as functions that take > `start_response` and `environ` and doesn't bother with much > framework the things I would like to see in a minor revision to WSGI > are: > > * A consistent way to

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, Graham Dumpleton wrote: On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:09 AM, chris.d...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who writes their WSGI applications as functions that take `start_response` and `environ` and doesn't bother with much framework the things I would like to see in a minor revision to

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 9:19 AM, Graham Dumpleton > wrote: > >> On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:09 AM, chris.d...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >> As someone who writes their WSGI applications as functions that take >> `start_response` and `environ` and doesn't bother with much >> fra

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 9:27 AM, chris.d...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > >> >>> On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:09 AM, chris.d...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> As someone who writes their WSGI applications as functions that take >>> `start_response` and `environ` and doesn't