On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
> If it was just that I would be happy to stay with bytes. But unless the
> standard library changes in the way it works on Python 3 there is not
> much but unicode we can use. bytes no longer behave like strings, it's
> not very comfortable
Hi,
James Bennett schrieb:
> Well, ordinarily I'd be inclined to agree: HTTP deals in bytes, so an
> interface to HTTP should deal in bytes as well.
If it was just that I would be happy to stay with bytes. But unless the
standard library changes in the way it works on Python 3 there is not
much b
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> WSGI is a fairly low-level protocol aimed at folks who need to interface a
> server to the outside world. The outside world (by its nature) talks bytes.
> I fear that any implied conversion of environment values and iterable
> return val
Hi,
Robert Brewer schrieb:
> urllib.unquote, for one. We had to make a version which accepts bytes
> (and outputs bytes). But it's only 8 lines of code.
Here a patch for urllib.parse that restores Python 2.x behavior.
Because it also changes behavior for Python 3.x I have not yet submitted
it for
Hi,
Chris McDonough schrieb:
> Personally, I find it a bit hard to get excited about Python 3 as a web
> application deployment platform.
Everybody feels that way currently. But if we don't fix WSGI that will
never change.
> Given this point of view, it would be extremely helpful if someone cou
+1
On Sep 20, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'll try to digest some of this, currently I'm pretty clueless.
Personally, I find it a bit hard to get excited about Python 3 as a
web
application deployment platform. This is of course a personal
judgment (I
don't mean to slight Py
I'll try to digest some of this, currently I'm pretty clueless.
Personally, I find it a bit hard to get excited about Python 3 as a web
application deployment platform. This is of course a personal judgment (I
don't mean to slight Python 3) but at this point, I'll think I'll probably be
writi
P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 03:06 PM 9/20/2009 +0200, Armin Ronacher wrote:
> >The following things became pretty clear when playing around with
> >various specifications on Python 3:
> >
> >- Python 3 no longer implicitly converts between unicode and byte
> >strings. This covers comparisons, the r
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Looking at the bigger picture, there are three overall goals that I
> can see that we would want to address.
>
> 1. Clarifications and corrections to existing WSGI for Python 2.X to
> allow readline() with size hint, mandatory end of stream sentinel for
> wsgi.input, supp
Armin Ronacher wrote:
> Thanks to Graham Dumpleton and Robert Brewer there is some serious
> progress on WSGI currently. I proposed a roadmap with some PEP
changes
> now that need some input.
>
> Summary:
>
> WSGI 1.0 stays the same as PEP 0333 currently is
> WSGI 1.1 becomes wha
2009/9/21 P.J. Eby :
> At 08:48 AM 9/20/2009 -0400, Etienne Robillard wrote:
>>
>> Good plan but I'm afraid now only a bunch of elite people on this list
>> is going to remember all the details on theses "upcoming"
>> specifications. Why the rush to specify WSGI 3.0 and not focus
>> mainly on the n
2009/9/21 Armin Ronacher :
>> IMO, this strongly suggests that it's the stdlib or Python 3 that's
>> broken here. How much of the stdlib are we talking about needing to
>> reimplement, aside from cgi.FieldStorage?
> I'm already creating a patch for urllib which currently requires
> unicode. I'm n
P.J. Eby schrieb:
>>- Python 3 no longer implicitly converts between unicode and byte
>>strings. This covers comparisons, the regular expression engine,
>>all string functions and many modules in the stdlib.
>>- The Python 3 stdlib radically moved to unicode for non unicode things
>>
At 04:50 PM 9/20/2009 +0200, Armin Ronacher wrote:
Django, Pylons, SQLAlchemy, Mako, Jinja2, Genshi, Werkzeug, WebOb and
many more technologies are based on unicode, even in Python 2.x. They
are currently doing decoding of byte data internally.
In Python 2.x if we stick to native strings for WS
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:51 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 08:48 AM 9/20/2009 -0400, Etienne Robillard wrote:
>>
>> Good plan but I'm afraid now only a bunch of elite people on this list
>> is going to remember all the details on theses "upcoming"
>> specifications. Why the rush to specify WSGI 3.0 and
Hi,
P.J. Eby schrieb:
> This discussion has been going on for so long that I've already
> forgotten what the problem was with just using the original 1.0 spec
> for 3.X, i.e., using native strings for everything, using latin-1
> encoding. The only things I can recall off the top of my head are
At 08:48 AM 9/20/2009 -0400, Etienne Robillard wrote:
Good plan but I'm afraid now only a bunch of elite people on this list
is going to remember all the details on theses "upcoming"
specifications. Why the rush to specify WSGI 3.0 and not focus
mainly on the next one ahead ?
Because having mor
At 03:06 PM 9/20/2009 +0200, Armin Ronacher wrote:
Hello everybody,
Thanks to Graham Dumpleton and Robert Brewer there is some serious
progress on WSGI currently. I proposed a roadmap with some PEP changes
now that need some input.
Summary:
WSGI 1.0 stays the same as PEP 0333 currentl
2009/9/20 Armin Ronacher :
> Hi,
>
> I know I pretty much SPAM the list here now which is why I added all the
> changes of WSGI 1.0 and what could become WSGI 1.1 into a repo on
> bitbucket as two PEPS:
>
> http://bitbucket.org/ianb/wsgi-peps/src/
>
>
> pep-0333.txt
>
> This is basically just a new
Hello everybody,
Thanks to Graham Dumpleton and Robert Brewer there is some serious
progress on WSGI currently. I proposed a roadmap with some PEP changes
now that need some input.
Summary:
WSGI 1.0 stays the same as PEP 0333 currently is
WSGI 1.1 becomes what Ian and I added to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Armin Ronacher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Graham Dumpleton schrieb:
>> Regardless of the details of changes being made to the PEP and the
>> creation of any new ones, do we need to first agree on the overall
>> direction we are going to take. Ie., the grand pla
2009/9/20 Armin Ronacher :
> For that I would rather go like this:
>
> WSGI 1.0 stays the same as PEP 0333 currently is
> WSGI 1.1 becomes what Ian and I added to PEP 0333
> WSGI 2.0 becomes a modified version of PEP
> WSGI 3.0 like XXX but drops start_response
>
>
> ..
Hi,
Armin Ronacher schrieb:
> WSGI 1.1 as currently specified in would be pretty uncontroversial
> on Python 2.x because of the str/unicode coercion that Python implicitly
> applies and that this is basically the only change.
Based on the table, is 2.0 now.
> That would be too many chan
Hi,
Graham Dumpleton schrieb:
> Regardless of the details of changes being made to the PEP and the
> creation of any new ones, do we need to first agree on the overall
> direction we are going to take. Ie., the grand plan at a high level.
Indeed. The 0333 changes are mostly uncontroversial and ca
24 matches
Mail list logo
