The PEP is unclear on this and should be clarified, IMO.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Jim Fulton wrote:
> The PEP is unclear on this and should be clarified, IMO.
My experience in using implementations is many servers do not require
the read size argument (they don't give a TypeError), but they block
without it, or if you read past CONTENT_LENGTH. So it should probably
be requi
Ian Bicking wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>> The PEP is unclear on this and should be clarified, IMO.
>
>
> My experience in using implementations is many servers do not require
> the read size argument (they don't give a TypeError), but they block
> without it, or if you read past CONTENT_LENG
At 10:20 AM 12/21/2005 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>Ian Bicking wrote:
> > Jim Fulton wrote:
> >
> >> The PEP is unclear on this and should be clarified, IMO.
> >
> >
> > My experience in using implementations is many servers do not require
> > the read size argument (they don't give a TypeError), but
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:20 AM 12/21/2005 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>> Ian Bicking wrote:
>> > Jim Fulton wrote:
>> >
>> >> The PEP is unclear on this and should be clarified, IMO.
>> >
>> >
>> > My experience in using implementations is many servers do not require
>> > the read size argumen
On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Ian Bicking wrote:
>
>> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The PEP is unclear on this and should be clarified, IMO.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My experience in using implementations is many servers do not require
>> the read size argument (they don't give a TypeError)
James Y Knight wrote:
The PEP is unclear on this and should be clarified, IMO.
>>>
>>>
>>> My experience in using implementations is many servers do not require
>>> the read size argument (they don't give a TypeError), but they block
>>> without it, or if you read past CONTENT_LENGTH. So
On Dec 28, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
>> Surely that's a bug in the server, not the spec? Indeterminate
>> length uploads (with transfer-encoding chunked) are allowed by
>> HTTP, after all. The CGI spec explicitly rejects such requests,
>> but WSGI doesn't seem to.
>>
>
> But wh