At 01:37 AM 8/27/2010 +0200, Armin Ronacher wrote:
Hi,
Is there a status update on that now I missed? Did something decide
on bytes for the environment values or are we still unsure about that?
To the extent we're "unsure", I think the holdup is simply that
nobody has tried doing an all-bytes WSGI implementation -- unless of
course you count all our Python 2.x experience as experience with an
all-bytes implementation. ;-)
(Of course, that experience won't help us with Python 3 stdlib issues.)
At that point I don't care at all about what is decided on as long
as something is decided. Can someone please stand up and just do that? :)
Essentially the problem right now is that unless such a choice is
made, there's little hope of getting the stdlib issues to be
resolved, because we can't exactly file bug reports against the
stdlib if we don't know what we want it to do. ;-)
My personal inclination is to define WSGI 2 as a bytes-oriented
protocol, and then encourage people to port to WSGI 2 before moving
to Python 3.
In theory, if we did it correctly it could actually minimize the
porting pain for Python 3.
In practice, I'm not sure how to do this, as I lack experience with
2to3 at the moment, or any production experience with Python 3 whatsoever.
_______________________________________________
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
