Ian Bicking wrote: >> Does anyone think this would be nice extension for a WSGI adapter >> written against current specification to implement even if not >> necessarily portable? > > Eh.
To add to this, I never found the CGI functionality useful. Why would I do that and not a real redirect? If there's links they'll be broken, because the client and the resource won't agree on what the real request URL was. If the script/app is the consumer, the Location header stuff doesn't work -- you don't get back the response. So it doesn't work for web service style internal requests. If it's something like authentication, that doesn't work either -- you are giving a request path back, which anyone could access, and you haven't added any information to it to specifically permit access (unless there's something in the environment that makes the subrequest clear; I never looked closely enough, nor is it specified). -- Ian Bicking | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://blog.ianbicking.org | Write code, do good | http://topp.openplans.org/careers _______________________________________________ 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
