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 they block > > without it, or if you read past CONTENT_LENGTH. So it should probably > > be required in the spec, since it's required in practice. > >Does this constitude a decision? Can somebody update the PEP?
I thought the PEP was actually pretty clear on this already. It says that the application should not attempt to read more data than is specified by CONTENT_LENGTH - which means that you can't omit the read() argument and avoid that. An application that omits the argument is therefore off-spec, and a server is thus well within its rights to reject this. As far as I know, there is also no circumstance under which a previously-working application (using CGI or some similar protocol) would be able to use read() without an argument and work correctly with any non-ancient version of HTTP. I'm happy to entertain suggestions for language that would make this more obvious. How about just adding """The "size" argument is required and must be a positive integer.""" to the existing note 1? _______________________________________________ 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