On 2 January 2011 12:09, Jonas Galvez <jonasgal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Graham Dumpleton wrote: >> If the people here who's opinion matters are quite happy for GothAlice >> to hijack the WSGI 2.0 moniker for PEP 444 I will shut up. But if that >> happens, I will voice my objections by simply not having anything to >> do with WSGI 2.0 any more. > > Hi Graham, I'm interested in learning what is your motivation for > objecting that PEP 444 be WSGI 2.0. I'm assuming you must have already > voiced your criticism on a technical level somewhere by this point. > Can you point me to it?
Because for all we know right now what will be WSGI 2.0 may look a lot different to what PEP 444 is now. Already they have taken the original PEP 444 that was put out by Chris, and which had never actually been updated based on feedback on the Python WEB-SIG list to address perceived shortcomings, and started injecting his own ideas on top of it without any real consultation with those on the WEB-SIG who have had a lot of experience with all this stuff. Thus what he is working on is a very fluid specification that keeps changing. Ie., it is thus a work in progress, yet the way they talk about it is if it already is the official WSGI 2.0 specification when it is still no more than a bunch of ideas of what could be done. I am thus manly objecting at this point on a matter of process and how they are portraying what PEP 444 is. The PEP 444 by rights should have been completely withdrawn and marked as rejected. If they want to carry on and take PEP 444 and turn it into something else, then give it some other working name, but where it still isn't labelled as WSGI 2.0. When they have fleshed it out sufficiently and it has passed review on the Python WEB-SIG that is fine and then gets put up as a PEP with some blessing, only then should it notionally be anointed as WSGI 2.0 if the community wants that. Don't do this and all you do is cause ongoing confusion in the community as to what WSGI 2.0 is given that the definition of what it may be keeps changing. I also have a various technical issues with the original WSGI specification and they aren't being addressed in PEP 444 from what I have seen so far, as well as having issues with new things in PEP 444. I have blogged and posted on the WEB-SIG list about a number of them and am now starting to get back into documenting what some of those other issues are. Overall though, I believe a big step needs to be taken back and fresh look at this stuff needs to be made. It needs to be cast into the greater context of how we deploy this stuff as well, otherwise deployment is going to continue to be a PITA with all the systems using different ways when there could be a better level of compatibility across them all to make deployment easier. 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
