For what it's worth, I'm happy with the changes made to WSGI 1 that produced PEP 3333.
I'm unlikely to champion PEP 444 going forward. It has already served its primary duty to me personally (which was to catalyze the formalization of some specification that is Python 3 inclusive). However, Armin may feel differently about it, so this doesn't constitute a withdrawal of PEP 444. I'm instead just signaling my own personal attitude: "don't really care as much now that there's something out there". On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:35 +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 > _______________________________________________ > 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/chrism%40plope.com > _______________________________________________ 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
