At 10:35 AM 10/22/2010 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Any one care to comment on my blog post?
http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2010/10/is-pep-3333-final-solution-for-wsgi-on.html
As far as web framework developers commenting, Armin at:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/du7bf/is_pep_3333_the_final_solution_for_wsgi_on_python/
has said:
"""Hopefully not. WSGI could do better and there is a proposal for
that (444)."""
So, looks he is very cool on the idea.
No other developers of actual web frameworks has commented at all on
PEP 3333 from what I can see.
Graham
Just out of curiosity, Graham, isn't PEP 3333 basically only a slight
modification to what you yourself proposed and implemented in
mod_wsgi for Python 3?
My guess is that there's been no comment because there's really not
much to say about it. The most controversial thing about it was
Python-Dev's objection to modifying PEP 333 in place -- and that's
the *only* reason why it's a new PEP at all.
(Indeed, I originally just made the discussed amendments to PEP 333,
and specifically wanted to avoid having a new PEP number in order to
create unnecessary additional discussion or questions.)
_______________________________________________
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
