As I think we all know, no one implements readline() for wsgi.input as
defined in the WSGI specification. The reason for this is that stuff
like cgi.FieldStorage would refuse to work and would just generate an
exception. This is because cgi.FieldStorage expects to pass an
argument to readline().
S
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> As I think we all know, no one implements readline() for wsgi.input as
> defined in the WSGI specification. The reason for this is that stuff
> like cgi.FieldStorage would refuse to work and would just generate an
> exception. This is because cgi.FieldStorage expects to pa
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> On 29/01/2008, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) One is to clarify this as a requirement upon the WSGI gateway.
> > Something like the following:
> > "If the client requests Expect: 100-continue, and the application
> > yields data before reading from the inp
I would like to see the following requirement added to the WSGI specification:
An application may only methods on environ["wsgi.input"] before it returns its
response iterable, or from within an execution of its iterable's next() method.
In particular, the application iterable's close() method,
On 31/01/2008, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> > As I think we all know, no one implements readline() for wsgi.input as
> > defined in the WSGI specification. The reason for this is that stuff
> > like cgi.FieldStorage would refuse to work and would just gener
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If the size argument is made mandatory, then it would parallel how
>>> read() function is defined, but this in itself would mean
>>> cgi.FieldStorage would break.
>>>
>>> This is because cgi.FieldStorage actually calls readline() with no
>>> argument as well as an
On 31/01/2008, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> If the size argument is made mandatory, then it would parallel how
> >>> read() function is defined, but this in itself would mean
> >>> cgi.FieldStorage would break.
> >>>
> >>> This is because cgi.
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> On 31/01/2008, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> If the size argument is made mandatory, then it would parallel how
> read() function is defined, but this in itself would mean
> cgi.FieldStorage would break.
>
> Thi
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Effectively, if a 200 response came back, it seems to suggest
> that the client still should send the request body, just that
> it 'SHOULD NOT wait for an indefinite period'. It doesn't say
> explicitly for the client that it shouldn't still send the
> request body if
For those on the Python web sig who might be thinking they missed part
of the conversation, you have. This is the second half of a
conversation started on Apache modules-dev list about Apache
100-continue processing. If interested, you can see the first half of
the conversation at:
http://mail-a
10 matches
Mail list logo