+1
On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
+1. There is no one answer for these issues (e.g., URI->IRI conversion
can lose information), so low-level infrastructure like WSGI shouldn't
be making choices for people.
On 22/09/2009, at 5:31 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 11:23 AM 9/21/2009 -0700, Robert Brewer wrote:
I still don't see why the environ should have multiple versions of
anything. It's not as if the HTTP request gives us multiple Request-
URI's. There's a single processing step that has to happen
somewhere: decoding the bytes of the Request-URI to unicode. For
the vast majority of apps, it should only happen once. Twice is
acceptable to me for some apps. As I pointed out in the linked
email, doing that as soon as possible (i.e. in the WSGI origin
server) allows URI's to be compared as character strings more
easily. If you deploy a piece of middleware that transcodes (based
on more information than servers want to deal with), it had better
be nearly first in the stack so routing works reliably.
The problem with this whole approach is that it's not composable.
You can't stick in an application under a router that uses a
different method for grokking its subtree of the URI space, unless
it knows what's been done to the URI and can un-do it.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but the only way I see to preserve
composability here is to use latin-1 or bytes.
The fundamental problem is that, like it or not, HTTP headers are
actually byte strings. The *only* reason we ever supported unicode
in WSGI was to handle platforms where there's no such thing as a non-
unicode string, and there we made it explicit that it's just a way
of manipulating *bytes*, not unicode.
ISTM that very few (if any) of the proposals floating around for
modifying WSGI are taking this concept into account. Most of them
sound to me like people saying, "yeah, but this particular hack will
work for *my* apps... so everybody else must be doing something
stupid."
But WSGI was built on the principle of *equally inconveniencing
everyone*, specifically to avoid an impossible attempt at consensus
between incompatible ways of doing things. (E.g., nine million
request/response APIs.)
So, if the only problem we're going to cause by using bytes
everywhere is to make everyone need to change their routing code on
Python 3, I vote +1000. ;-)
_______________________________________________
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/mnot%40mnot.net
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________
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/mdipierro%40cti.depaul.edu
_______________________________________________
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
