On 5 January 2011 07:04, James Y Knight <f...@fuhm.net> wrote: > Back to the subject of this thread: A simple CGI server is useful because > it's simple enough that you can include it in the spec, to demonstrate how to > handle various bits of WSGI. And anyone writing a webserver understands CGI, > and can understand that. A complete HTTP implementation would not be simple > enough to write into the spec.
+1 And this is the crux of the issue. It doesn't matter whether people use CGI or not, CGI provides a good basis for showing the mechanics of how a WSGI server/adapter should process stuff. If not that, what are you going to do, try and use pseudo code, include a much larger socket based web server solution? 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
