2009/3/28 Alan Kennedy <a...@xhaus.com>: > Dear all, > > For those of you at PyCon, there is a WSGI Open Space @ 5pm today (Friday). > > The sub-title of the open space is "Does WSGI need revision"? > > An example: Philip Jenvey (http://dunderboss.blogspot.com/) raised the > need for something akin to what Java folks call "Lifecycle methods", > so that WSGI apps can do initialization and finalization. > > http://java.sun.com/j2ee/tutorial/1_3-fcs/doc/Servlets4.html > > I'm sure there are plenty of other topics that could be discussed as well. > > See you @5pm.
Please, whatever you do, do not go making anything like this, or even a standard request/response object a part of the WSGI standard. Create a new specification for this 'application level' stuff which is distinct from WSGI and leave WSGI as being the 'server gateway interface' as it is really meant to be. This should go as far as coming up with a better middleware abstraction for the application layer and discouraging people from using WSGI middleware as they exist now. All these new components, although the reference implementation may host on top of WSGI, should other wise hide WSGI thereby allowing them to be hosted on top of an alternate interface or a newer revision of WSGI, such as the minimal revision talked about for WSGI 2.0. If this stuff is all pushed into the WSGI specification then it will be a backward step as far as improving the situation for Python as far as web hosting availability. I have been trying to put together a blog entry saying just this and other things about the role of WSGI, but just haven't had the time. Since sprint almost starting, probably will not get a chance now. Graham _______________________________________________ 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
