Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hope you don't mind, I copied this bad to web-sig...
Yea, sorry, that was the intention... > Well, no one is going to argue that WSGI give pretty objects to work > with. WSGI is very thorough and non-limiting. It also avoids any > discussion of mixed case vs. underscores, and other details which are > hard to decide on, while also being quite unproductive. I think of it > as being aesthetically neutral. There's some other useful aspects of > it as well. True.. > *But*, you shouldn't program directly to it, unless you are trying to > be framework neutral (or maybe really low level), and even then it > isn't always necessary. So it's expected there should be wrappers; > especially request wrappers, but response wrappers are also fine (but > they do interupt the call sequence a little in comparison to request > wrappers). Mmm, this is a bit outside of my main focus, so I'd have to have a better look at it - I understand, and those wrappers can be very very thin also. The only point I would like to make is that it is very useful to glue several frameworks together to accomplish a task. And they often communicate via request and response instances. I'll have to do more homework and try to make a better case for it. >> Regarding the WSGI - are there plans to have an implementation of it >> in the standard library? > > No, there aren't any plans. I wasn't really sure what would go in the > standard library, though now I'm thinking it would be really good to > get some stuff in there. In particular, I'd like to see > SimpleHTTPServer extended to do WSGI, and a WSGI server added to cgi. > I don't know how practical it is to add new servers to the standard > library, but the ones that are already there could definitely support > it. On the application side the cgi library mostly is sufficient, > though it could probably use some relevant examples and documentation > -- right now you have to read the source of that module to get the > full FieldStorage signature. Definately a good idea to get some stuff in there, I think. Some people are publishing implementations of WSGI compliant code in single files on their websites, others grab these, modify them - and you end up getting several mutations of the same thing installed by different packaged products... And FieldStorage is also not the prettiest thing in the world :-)! (But I'm happy its there..) -i _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
