On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:17 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:
> [trimming reply headers to just web-sig] > > At 12:57 PM 9/21/2010 -0400, Ian Bicking wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:09 PM, P.J. Eby <<mailto:p...@telecommunity.com >> >p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: >> The Python 3 specific changes are to use: >> >> * ``bytes`` for I/O streams in both directions >> * ``str`` for environ keys and values >> * ``bytes`` for arguments to start_response() and write() >> >> >> This is the only thing that seems odd to me -- it seems like the response >> should be symmetric with the request, and the request in this case uses str >> for headers (status being header-like), and bytes for the body. >> > > Are you suggesting a "``str`` for headers, ``bytes`` for bodies" approach > instead? > Yes. I suppose that could work; I was going for "str in, bytes out". My > assumption, though, was that headers are relatively easy to address at a > choke point from a framework's output. But I guess that iterator output is > equally chokable. > The request body would still be bytes in either model (at least, I assumed that). I'm open to discussion on this point, so long as every value produced or > consumed by a WSGI application is of a specified single type(). > > > > Otherwise this seems good to me, the only other major errata I can think >> of are all listed in the links you included. >> > > Um, if by "links" you mean, "included textually in the proposal", then > sure. If it's not in the proposal, it's not going in the PEP, even if it's > on the WSGI Amendments page or Graham's blog. > Well, at a minimum there is the size hint on wsgi.input. Things like CONTENT_LENGTH are probably more involved than is necessary for this revision. -- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org
_______________________________________________ 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
