2009/9/24 P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com>: >> Anyway, that is the thought. Should we be looking at WSGI as a set of >> layers instead of assuming we have to push unicode into the gateway >> interface layer? > > These are not mutually exclusive options. However, the set of layers thing, > if I'm understanding it correctly, is a big fat -1000 -- totally invalidates > the whole point of WSGI. Honestly, I don't even like having two versions of > the spec, which is why the idea of having a "3.0" really ticks me off. > Standards don't benefit from having multiple versions, even in disguised > forms like "layers" or "options".
This isn't really about multiple versions of the specification which shows you do perhaps simply don't understand. With such a negative response, seems no point in trying to explain to you though. >> FWIW, I thought of this because I was going to suggest at this point >> that overall we have a break from the discussion at this point. > > I'm not sure I follow you. Ian has put forth a proposal that I heartily > support, with the possible exception of a part that I've asked for > clarification on. Others have expressed support for that proposal as well, > and I haven't seen any -1's on it yet. > > Perhaps you should take a look at it? (It's under the "Proposal to remove > SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO" thread, but it's really a complete proposal for > moving forward with a single new 2.0 spec.) I have read it. Right now there is a mere 10 posts in that discussion which is nothing compared to the scrutiny that other proposals have got. Other proposals have also had Armin and Robert trying out actual code to either implement them or investigate the practicality of them actually working. I have seen no suggestion that this has been done in regard to Ian's proposal, so it is theoretical only whether other options have at least been tried to an extent. Putting aside the technical merits or otherwise of Ian's suggestions, it falls at a time akin to how governments will introduce new legislation very late in a sitting (ie., 3am) in the morning, when most have lost interest or don't care any more. The governments do this because they know it will not get the scrutiny it should. Now, I am not saying that Ian has done that deliberately, just that it has been unfortunate timing in that some of the participants in the discussions seemed to have faded away and at this point most are possibly just seeing this as all part of the original discussion instead of something new and so either not commenting or simply cant be bothered commenting. With that in mind, part of what I suggested was for us all to take a breather and try and get together some concise documentation on a web site somewhere, along with working code examples for all the different options, that can sit on top of existing WSGI implementations so that people can actually try out and experiment with the options and see what in practice works. This way people can see exactly what is being suggested rather than having to wade through huge amounts of emails to distil what is important and what isn't. Don't know why you didn't understand what I was suggesting in that part of my email. Anyway, I am at the point that if someone else wants to do that, ie., document the proposals and provide example implementation code that will run on top of WSGI 1.0, they can, but frankly I am not sure I can be bothered now even though I suggested it. Overall, I believe I have more or less worked out what I will probably now do in regard to mod_wsgi and its future, and that decision will mean I no longer have to care about what you all decide as I wouldn't necessarily have to implement it anyway. I'll be talking to a few others off list about if first and then make my final decision. After almost two years of trying to get WSGI for Python 3.0 to fly, I really do think it is time for me to give up. I did say a while back I would try one last push and this has been it. 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