R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> added the comment: A day late, but I've looked at the patch.
Now, I'm not all that knowledgeable about CGI, so other people will probably want to chime in here.... First, I'm uploading a new version of the patch as an svn diff (can be applied to a checkout using 'patch -p0 <patchfile' from the top level directory of the checkout). This includes Pierre's patch unchanged, and includes changes to test_cgi so that Pierre's patch is tested. Some of the tests fail. A couple of the failures have to do with file bodies being returned as binary when previously they were returned as strings. This raises the issue of backward compatibility: if cgi/fieldstorage using applications exist for 3.1, changing this will break them. There may not be a good solution to that problem. But it also may not be possible to fix this in 3.2 at this point (which I seem to have already decided earlier, but I can't now remember why...). >From looking over the cgi code it is not clear to me whether Pierre's approach >is simpler or more complex than the alternative approach of starting with >binary input and decoding as appropriate. From a consistency perspective I >would prefer the latter, but I don't know if I'll have time to try it out >before rc1. I also wonder if it would be possible to rewrite FieldStorage to take even better advantage of FeedParser, but if so that would *certainly* not happen before rc1. ---------- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file20269/cgi_plus_tests.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4953> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
