On 13 April 2010 21:20, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:13, Graham Dumpleton > <graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: >> There is no such thing as a WSGI 2.0 PEP and there is no proper >> concensus either on what it should look like. Thus if you see anything >> claiming to implement WSGI 2.0, then it isn't and you should only view >> it as an experimental proposal. You are warned. :-) > > Do you (or someone else) have a status on where WSGI 2 is? IIRC WSGI 1 > isn't really usable with Python 3.x, so it seems about time we get > something going again (AIUI this is blocking Werkzeug from being > ported to 3.x, for example).
WSGI 2.0 isn't about Python 3.X, it is about removing start_response(). Python 3.X support can be catered for by clarifications in the WSGI 1.0 specification and to a degree how Python 3.X is implemented is dictated by existing practice in the form of what wsgiref implemented in Python 3.1. The Apache/mod_wsgi implementation has had Python 3.X support for over a year using the same interpretation. I believe latest CherryPy WSGI server code is also providing Python 3.X support. Apache/mod_wsgi tried to push the issue of a new definition/specification to cater for Python 3.X by actually identifying itself as WSGI 1.1. The attempts at ratifying that didn't happen however, but then no one has turned around either to complain about Apache/mod_wsgi identifying itself as WSGI 1.1 and so it has been left that way and not reverted to WSGI 1.0. So, in effect existing practice has determined how WSGI on Python 3.X should be implemented and given how long this has been going on, nothing is likely to change that now. You can however see a summary of how it is being interpreted at: http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/wiki/SupportForPython3X 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
