> I generally like it.
>
> About the *.file_wrapper removal, i suggest
> a PSGI-like approach where 'body' can contains a File Object.
>
> def file_app(environ):
>fd = open('/tmp/pippo.txt', 'r')
>status = b'200 OK'
>headers = [(b'Content-type', b'text/plain')]
>body = fd
>ret
On 2010-09-16, at 18:08 , Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Armin Ronacher
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 9/16/10 1:44 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>> I propose to write in the PEP that a middleware should provide an
>>> "app" attribute to get the wrapped application or middleware.
>>> I
On 2011-01-02, at 21:38 , Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
> On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
>>> I'd suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until we
>>> reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't address.
> Async is one area that does not cover, and
On 2011-01-02, at 23:16 , Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
>> (Just trying to keep this thread from degenerating into a shouting match.)
> I missed how his statements could be construed as offensive. :/
I missed it as well (though my report might have been brusque), and definitely
didn't intent it to
On 2011-08-18, at 23:14 , Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Who owns and manages www.wsgi.org wiki?
>
> The amount of spam the wiki gets now is becoming rediculous.
>
> If we care about the wiki, it is time to take the content in it and
> dump it in github as a project which can then be loaded up to Read
On 2011-09-10, at 11:45 , Stephan Diehl wrote:
>
> How far are we in getting things ready at the ReadTheDocs end? I'd say, the
> earlier we can switch the DNS entry, the better.
Everything was ported (as of August 28 anyway)[0], except for the
specifications: from what I can tell, Sphinx does no
On 2011-09-10, at 21:18 , Stephan Diehl wrote:
> I'm still not sure about the intended workflow:
> 1. wsgi.org content repository is on github which is developer friendly.
> But, who decides about write access? In pratice, this might not be
> a problem though, because it's only a handfull peopl
On 2011-09-11, at 00:30 , Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Just change:
>
> :Title: Waiting for File Descriptor Events
> :Author: Christopher Stawarz
> :Discussions-To: Python Web-SIG
> :Status: Proposed
> :Created: 11-May-2008
>
> to:
>
> Waiting for File Descriptor Events
>
On 2011-09-10, at 22:18 , Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> We haven't actually done a push up to ReadTheDocs yet.
>
> Sorry, just been too busy with work and trip to US. I expect things to
> calm down once get home this week.
Apart from your chronic lack of time, is there anything left blocking
the push
On 2011-09-16, at 12:20 , Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> On 16 September 2011 19:46, Masklinn wrote:
>> On 2011-09-10, at 22:18 , Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>> We haven't actually done a push up to ReadTheDocs yet.
>>>
>>> Sorry, just been too busy with work an
On 2011-09-19, at 11:21 , Christian Theune wrote:
> On 09/16/2011 11:10 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>> On 17 September 2011 03:05, Masklinn wrote:
>>> On 2011-09-16, at 12:20 , Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>> On 16 September 2011 19:46, Masklinn wrote:
>>
On 2011-09-19, at 22:42 , Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> One thing we should do now is create a page with instructions on how
> you can contribute changes back via github project.
>
> Graham
Maybe add a pair of sections on the index (apart from the current toctree) to
explain what the doc
Moving here as suggested by Terry Reedy as this list may be more
interested than -ideas (note: some feedback already used to revise
the original proposal, and a very basic patch — with no tests — is
provided for the current CPython default branch)
Currently, calling wsgiref.simple_server simply mo
On 2012-03-29, at 12:38 , Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> On 29 March 2012 21:02, Masklinn wrote:
>> Moving here as suggested by Terry Reedy as this list may be more
>> interested than -ideas (note: some feedback already used to revise
>> the original proposal, and a very basic
On 2012-03-29, at 19:46 , PJ Eby wrote:
>
> * Add an option to serve a single request or forever
> * Have it optionally launch any script in the webbrowser, not just the demo
Should these options be activated only when not mounting the demo, or
all the time (meaning they'd default to single and o
On 2012-03-30, at 04:25 , PJ Eby wrote:
>
>> (B) use --file=c:\app.py or similar to disambiguate what kind of
>> parsing to do - then the typical case can be the importable and users
>> who really want to refer to files explicitly can do so
>
> This is my preference if we do support both - to exp
On 2012-03-30, at 20:22 , Sasha Hart wrote:
>
> I am finding more reasons to dislike that -m:
>
>python -m wsgiref.simple_server -m blog app
>
> Beyond looking a little stuttery, it's really unclear. Anyone could be
> forgiven for thinking that -m meant the same thing in both cases
And it d
On 2012-03-30, at 21:58 , Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Masklinn wrote:
>> 2. You seem to have asserted from the start that the default should be
>> mounting modules, but I have seen no evidence or argument in favor of
>> that so far.
>>
On 2012-03-31, at 05:27 , PJ Eby wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Sasha Hart wrote:
>
>> I do really like the idea of having a quick WSGI runner in the stdlib,
>>
> Regarding modules vs. files, I don't really care that much which way the
> capability is spelled, as long as the file vs.
On 2012-05-19, at 13:32 , anatoly techtonik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It really bugs me to use Mailman workflow for discussions in 2012.
> Why a WEB-SIG uses non-web technology for communicating anyway?
Because it works, it works well, and it's a standard communication tool
in and around Python? Why "fix
20 matches
Mail list logo
