James Y Knight wrote: > On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > On 9/29/06, Michael Kerrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But the current implementation of cgi.FieldStorage in the 2.4.4 > >> branch > >> and on Python 2.5 does call readline with the size argument. It has > >> started to do this in response to the Python bug #1112549 - > >> cgi.FieldStorage memory usage can spike in line-oriented ops. See > >> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php? > >> func=detail&aid=1112549&group_id=5470&atid=105470 > >> > >> Since it is reasonable for a WSGI application to use > >> cgi.FieldStorage > >> I am wondering whether cgi.FieldStorage or the WSGI specification > >> needs > >> to changed in order to solve this incompatibility. > >> > >> Originally I thought it was cgi.FieldStorage that needs to be > >> changed, > >> and hence tried to fix it by wrapping the input stream so that the > >> readline method always uses the read method on the input stream. > >> While > >> this seems to work for me it introduces a level of > complexity in the > >> cgi.py file, and possible some other bugs, that makes me think that > >> adding the size argument for readline into the WSGI specification > >> isn't > >> such bad idea after all. > > > > Since that change to cgi.py was a security fix I would strongly > > recommend not to remove it and to change the WSGI spec instead. > > Given that this change is now part of python 2.4.4 and python > 2.5, it > seems to me it is now a defacto requirement that all WSGI server > implementations must support readline with a size argument in order > to run any interesting software, despite the spec explicitly saying > that you shouldn't. I suspect simply modifying the spec to > follow the > current reality would be the least bad option. > > But this kind of destabilizing breakage really shouldn't be allowed > to happen again. Once the error was discovered, the cgi.py change > should have been immediately reverted until either a decision was > made to change the WSGI spec, or else the change fixed to not break > WSGI compliant servers. This limbo situation is pretty bad.
...and it's still pretty bad. What can I do to speed up this process? Write a change proposal for the WSGI spec? Robert Brewer System Architect Amor Ministries [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list [email protected] Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
