I think we're violently agreeing. -jj
On 4/29/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:05 PM 4/29/05 -0700, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote: > >At the risk of showing my ignorance concerning > >WSGI, it's easier to use a session library in Perl than a session > >library in WSGI, because the session library has no knowledge of > >anything in your application, not even a context object. > > I don't understand why you think WSGI requires anything different. > > Actually, most of the time I wonder why people think sessions should be > implemented with WSGI middleware at all, as opposed to just using a > library. Each time, however, I eventually figure out that it's because > they'd like responses affecting the session (e.g. Set-Cookie headers) to be > done automatically, without the app needing to care about it. > > Of course, management of the "session state" vs. management of the "session > content" are largely orthogonal concerns that might be worth standardizing > an interface between, so that you can mix and match session-state > mechanisms (cookies, subdomains, paths, query string tags) with > session-content mechanisms (files, database, shared memory, etc.). > > -- I have decided to switch to Gmail, but messages to my Yahoo account will still get through. _______________________________________________ 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
