Sorry folks, I'm going to have to do some serious load shedding if I ever want to get the Py3K effort under way. You are going to have to argue amongst yourselves about the best wsgi reference implementation to put into the standard library.
As a starting point, the code you reference seems particularly underdocumented. --Guido On 3/15/06, Clark C. Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido, > > In the past few weeks it looks like CherryPy people have put in a > serious effort cleaning-up their WSGI Server (so it does not have > external dependencies, etc.). I'd like to applaud their effort and > suggest that we might want to use their implementation as the basis > of a built-in Python 2.5 standard library version of WSGI. > > http://svn.cherrypy.org/trunk/cherrypy/_cpwsgiserver.py > > Kind Regards, > > Clark > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:52:32PM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: > | I'm not set on "production" quality code, but I think the general > | sentiment against that is entirely premature. The implementations > | brought up -- CherryPy's > | (http://svn.cherrypy.org/trunk/cherrypy/_cphttpserver.py) and Paste's > | (http://svn.pythonpaste.org/Paste/trunk/paste/httpserver.py) and > | wsgiref's > | > (http://cvs.eby-sarna.com/wsgiref/src/wsgiref/simple_server.py?rev=1.2&view=markup) > | are all pretty short. It would be better to discuss the particulars. > | Is there a code path in one or more of these servers which you think is > | unneeded and problematic? > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
