Re: [Web-SIG] wsgi.url_vars feedback

2006-10-31 Thread Luke Arno
I feel even more +1 on ['wsgi.url_vars'] now. I implemented as currently discussed in selector and it works out very well. Selector now supports positional args in path expressions. I even made some experimental little decorators so that url_vars can go into method signatures. I don't know that I

Re: [Web-SIG] wsgi.url_vars feedback

2006-10-31 Thread Ian Bicking
Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 04:17 PM 10/31/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: >> One little question: if a dispatcher can never produce one of the >> kinds of information (which happens for some of them), should they put >> in an empty list/tuple or empty dict, or should they put in None for >> that

Re: [Web-SIG] wsgi.url_vars feedback

2006-10-31 Thread Ian Bicking
Robert Brewer wrote: > Ian Bicking wrote: >> Having thought about it, I think storing a tuple of >> (args, kwargs) is the best way to do this, since it's >> most explicit. Consumers can deal with args specially, >> ignore them, or raise an error, as they see fit -- >> there are reasons to do each

Re: [Web-SIG] wsgi.url_vars feedback

2006-10-31 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 04:17 PM 10/31/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: >One little question: if a dispatcher can never produce one of the kinds of >information (which happens for some of them), should they put in an empty >list/tuple or empty dict, or should they put in None for that item? I'm >currently saying they

Re: [Web-SIG] wsgi.url_vars feedback

2006-10-31 Thread Robert Brewer
Ian Bicking wrote: > Having thought about it, I think storing a tuple of > (args, kwargs) is the best way to do this, since it's > most explicit. Consumers can deal with args specially, > ignore them, or raise an error, as they see fit -- > there are reasons to do each of these. Hiding args > in

Re: [Web-SIG] wsgi.url_vars feedback

2006-10-31 Thread Ian Bicking
Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 05:39 PM 10/23/2006 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: >> By using a tuple or list, you can be sure you don't have a sparse list, >> which probably isn't something any system is likely to handle. The >> double underscores kind of mark __args__ as a special kind of key, so >> it's

Re: [Web-SIG] Proposal: Handling POST forms in WSGI

2006-10-31 Thread Ian Bicking
(Copied back to the list) Andrew Clover wrote: > Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > When this happens, the form can be parsed by ``cgi.FieldStorage``. > > Agree with the objections others have posted. > > There are many alternative things one might want to do with the body > that do