Bill Janssen wrote: >> I think WSGI is a better interface than any of these. BaseHTTPServer is >> a reasonable basis for building a server (wsgiref.simple_server and >> other's use it), but the subclasses are a little funky IMHO. Giving >> them the name http.server makes them seem like the Right Solution, and I >> don't think they are. They're more like server-building tools. > > Yes, these classes are quite old, and have been updated only patchily > over the years. I don't use them, either. But I guess the question > is whether wsgiref.* is a better _implementation_ than any of these. > We don't really have interfaces in Python.
wsgiref.simple_server actually uses BaseHTTPServer, so the implementations are tied. wsgiref.simple_server is a much better API than BaseHTTPServer. Even then, wsgiref.simple_server isn't the only server based on BaseHTTPServer, so it's not without some use as an abstract base class for servers. It's just not a useful base class for applications. Ian _______________________________________________ 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
