Re: [Web-SIG] Last call for WSGI 1.0 errata/clarifications
Hi, Have all the changes been tested with real world implementations? cheers, On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:32 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: Just a reminder: I'm planning to actually update PEP 333 over the weekend and start working on wsgiref updates, so if you have any last-minute comments on the proposal, now's the time to post them, however unpolished they may be! ___ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/renesd%40gmail.com ___ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Web-SIG] Last call for WSGI 1.0 errata/clarifications
Il 23/09/2010 18:32, P.J. Eby ha scritto: Just a reminder: I'm planning to actually update PEP 333 over the weekend and start working on wsgiref updates, so if you have any last-minute comments on the proposal, now's the time to post them, however unpolished they may be! Where can I find a draft of the update? Thanks Manlio ___ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Web-SIG] Last call for WSGI 1.0 errata/clarifications
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: Just a reminder: I'm planning to actually update PEP 333 over the weekend and start working on wsgiref updates, so if you have any last-minute comments on the proposal, now's the time to post them, however unpolished they may be! Will you bump the version number to 1.1, or will it stay at 1.0? Does anyone actually check the version number? - Jeff ___ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Web-SIG] Last call for WSGI 1.0 errata/clarifications
At 09:52 AM 9/24/2010 -0600, Jeff Hardy wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: Just a reminder: I'm planning to actually update PEP 333 over the weekend and start working on wsgiref updates, so if you have any last-minute comments on the proposal, now's the time to post them, however unpolished they may be! Will you bump the version number to 1.1, or will it stay at 1.0? Does anyone actually check the version number? Since these are just clarifications to the existing spec, and no previously-compliant implementations are invalidated by the changes, there will be no changes to the version number. - Jeff ___ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Web-SIG] Last call for WSGI 1.0 errata/clarifications
At 01:22 PM 9/24/2010 +0200, René Dudfield wrote: Hi, Have all the changes been tested with real world implementations? mod_wsgi under Python 3 is compliant with the changes, and I believe it has all the general addenda/clarifications implemented under Python 2 as well (and for some years now, in fact). ___ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Web-SIG] Last call for WSGI 1.0 errata/clarifications
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 P.J. Eby wrote: Just a reminder: I'm planning to actually update PEP 333 over the weekend and start working on wsgiref updates, so if you have any last-minute comments on the proposal, now's the time to post them, however unpolished they may be! I'm fine with the substance of the changes you proposed, but puzzled about the process: in what case does it work to updated an already-approved-and-implemented PEP would be updated, instead of replacing it with a newer PEP (e.g., PEPs 241 - 314 - 345). Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkybob0ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ64eACfedK0bHE9/zTpwx5acmXlJi+0 sKAAoL8Q3V2tPnmC4A9BBwb088odHSqf =f0ph -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Web-SIG] Last call for WSGI 1.0 errata/clarifications
At 02:51 PM 9/23/2010 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 P.J. Eby wrote: Just a reminder: I'm planning to actually update PEP 333 over the weekend and start working on wsgiref updates, so if you have any last-minute comments on the proposal, now's the time to post them, however unpolished they may be! I'm fine with the substance of the changes you proposed, but puzzled about the process: in what case does it work to updated an already-approved-and-implemented PEP would be updated, instead of replacing it with a newer PEP (e.g., PEPs 241 - 314 - 345). In the case where one is clarifying ambiguities/questions in the original spec. ;-) (None of the changes invalidate existing implementations, but simply provide additional guidance/best practice suggestions. Even the Python 3 changes won't invalidate at least mod_wsgi's Python 3 implementation.) ___ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
