Graham Dumpleton wrote: > Personally I believe that WSGI 1.0 should die along with Python 2.X. I > believe that WSGI 2.0 should be developed to replace it and the > introduction of Python 3.0 would be a great time to do that given that > people are going to have to change their code anyway and that code > isn't then likely to be backward compatible with Python 2.X.
I don't believe it should just *die*. But I agree that this is a good time to revisit the specification. Especially since I have no idea how the change to unicode text would effect the WSGI environment. Having the environment hold bytes seems weird, but having it hold unicode is a substantial change. I don't think it will be as bad as Martijn thinks, because the libraries people use will probably have relatively few interface changes. Pylons and WebOb for instance should maintain largely the same interface (and they already expose unicode when possible). None of the changes proposed for WSGI 2 would change this. If I'm maintaining two versions of a library (one for Python 2, one for Python 3), then at least I'd like to get a little benefit out of it, and a revised WSGI would give some benefit. I think we might still need some kind of WSGI 1.1 to clarify what WSGI 1 (-like semantics) means in a Python 3.0 environment. Creating adapters from WSGI 1 to WSGI 2 should be easy enough that we could still offer some support for minimally-translated WSGI code. Ian _______________________________________________ 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
