On 24/05/07, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian Bicking wrote: > >> Does anyone think this would be nice extension for a WSGI adapter > >> written against current specification to implement even if not > >> necessarily portable? > > > > Eh. > > To add to this, I never found the CGI functionality useful. Why would I > do that and not a real redirect? If there's links they'll be broken, > because the client and the resource won't agree on what the real request > URL was. If the script/app is the consumer, the Location header stuff > doesn't work -- you don't get back the response. So it doesn't work for > web service style internal requests. If it's something like > authentication, that doesn't work either -- you are giving a request > path back, which anyone could access, and you haven't added any > information to it to specifically permit access (unless there's > something in the environment that makes the subrequest clear; I never > looked closely enough, nor is it specified).
Understand. Although CGI specifies it, if it isn't in practice useful for much then no point doing it. I'll thus not worry about it unless someone comes along with a very compelling argument of how it may actually be useful. Graham _______________________________________________ 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
