On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Robert Brewer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We had a good second meeting and answered more issues. My understanding
> is that there is another BoF scheduled for tomorrow (Sunday). Check the
> Open Space board for details.
>
> Those present at the second meeting:
>
> * Mar
Hi all,
We had a good second meeting and answered more issues. My understanding
is that there is another BoF scheduled for tomorrow (Sunday). Check the
Open Space board for details.
Those present at the second meeting:
* Mark Ramm (TG)
* Mike Orr (Pylons)
* Bob Brewer (CherryPy)
* Ian Bickin
Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> Graham, I confess that it was I who brought up the idea of a
wsgi.input
> iterator at the WSGI Open Space yesterday evening. :-) The discussion
> seemed to be assuming a file-like input object that could be read from
> by a piece of middleware, then "backed up" or "rew
Graham, I confess that it was I who brought up the idea of a wsgi.input
iterator at the WSGI Open Space yesterday evening. :-) The discussion
seemed to be assuming a file-like input object that could be read from
by a piece of middleware, then "backed up" or "rewound" before passing
it down to the
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> For those of you at PyCon, there is a WSGI Open Space @ 5pm today
> (Friday).
>
> The sub-title of the open space is "Does WSGI need revision"?
Hi all,
We had a good meeting but it was too short. We plan on having another
Open Space meeting at 5pm today (Saturday) to contin
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> 2009/3/28 Mark Ramm :
>> My thought is that we should do a couple things to the wsgi standard,
>> and then anything like the lifecycle methods gets addresse,d it should
>> be pushed into a "container" standard or something.
>>
>> I think R
