On 13 October 2014 16:59, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Robert Collins > <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: >> FWIW I'm totally fine with you bringing together that PEP - as you say >> its complementary to what I'm focused on (I believe I even suggested >> you might want to do that). > > Did you have any feedback on the proposal itself? I'm particularly > counting on you to tell me if I've horribly misunderstood something > important about the use cases or the requirements for the protocols > themselves.
Not yet. Really just got back to stuff today. Rather than digging a hole for myself by commenting until I've absorbed it, let me do that and then I'll comment. :) > I think that the "upgrade" model I've presented will enable you to > happily design completely new API paradigms without having to figure > out how to tunnel them through a maze of WSGI middleware, with the > exception of having reasonable ways to present the incoming request as > a WSGI request. But if I've missed something there, please let me > know. Sure will. As I said earlier on in our thread, I'm not convinced that presenting new things as WSGI1 requests makes sense. I understand your arguments about adoption, but as I understand it WSGI itself started with nothing implementing it, and yet its now a very common lingua franca. So - I'd like to defer thinking too hard about the migration path, other than ensuring that its possible - and your draft may well be instrumental in some of the conversion paths needed. More once I've absorbed it. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
