At 04:20 PM 2/4/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: >ISTM that wsgiref itself >is stable enough, and having it in the stdlib would lower the bar for >anybody to develop WSGI-compliant apps even if they refuse to use a >toolkit. A lot of the other things you're mentioning above seem to be >of a different kind -- nice-to-haves, for sure, but either they're not >100% stable yet, or they enter the slippery slope of appearing to be a >specific framework choice (cgitb already has that feel to me).
Good point. I'd still like to throw in Ian's "lint" tool or something like it, though, since wsgiref only implements app compliancy tests, not server compliance. But most of the other stuff is still evolving too much, I agree. wsgiref, OTOH, doesn't change much because the spec hasn't changed, and it's not particularly ambitious anyway. I wrote it with stdlib-ish conservatism in mind, i.e. no fancy stuff. :) FastCGI would also be nice, but it's easy to install fancy things with eggs now; it makes more sense to put the core and slowly-changing functionality in the stdlib. _______________________________________________ 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
