On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Ben Bangert <[email protected]> wrote:
> The fixes I was aware of that Armin has worked around in Werkzeug: > - Multipart parsing that doesn't suck, better file upload handling > - Fixed bug in Python stdlib regarding handling of 'bad' cookies. Ie, if > Python is parsing 4 cookies, and the first one is 'invalid', Python *stops > parsing* the rest! This is bad as several webapp systems use the character > Python doesn't like, so having it on the same domain as a Python app (not > werkzeug) means cookies just disappear since Python stops parsing them. > I would like to include these fixes or improvements over the standard library, but they don't affect the API so it's not a 1.0 blocker. > I think there was one or two other things related to having a > cgi.fieldstorage that doesn't suck, and some other header parsing that > Werkzeug might handle better. But these are what I'd consider critical fixes > for getting into WebOb. > Does Werkzeug use cgi.FieldStorage, given that it has its own parser? Getting FieldStorage objects out of req.POST (and into req.FILES with a different API) would be important, and make the transition to another parser primarily an implementation detail. -- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org | http://topplabs.org/civichacker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
