On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 21:39, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > Or, to put it another way: splitting the spec into two 100% incompatible > versions is a bad idea for Python 3 adoption. With a WSGI 1 addendum, we > should be able to make it possible to put the same apps and middleware on 2 > and 3 with just a decorator wrapping them. (i.e., people should be able to > write libraries that run on both 2 and 3, which is probably critical to > adoption). > > I just wish I'd come to these conclusions much sooner... like a year or two > ago. :-(
Meh, I'd much rather have Web3/WSGI 2 (and I prefer the WSGI name, too) for Python 3 than the small update you're proposing. IMO there are some good improvements in Chris & Armin's spec over the original WSGI, and I would be sad to have to go back to an incremental update that does just enough to make PEP 333 work on Python 3. (Also I think there might actually be value in having some incompatibility to make the distinction clearer.) Cheers, Dirkjan _______________________________________________ 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
