On 2011-01-02 09:21:29 -0800, Guido van Rossum said:
Alice hasn't posted a link to her rewrite of PEP 444 in a while. AFAICT
it's this:
https://github.com/GothAlice/wsgi2/blob/master/pep444.textile . I find
it a bit disturbing that the "official" copy of PEP 444
(http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0444/ ) hasn't been updated. This
is confusing for occasional observers (like myself), since the
python.org copy looks quite dead. It also is not in line with the PEP
workflow as written down in PEP 1
(http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#pep-work-flow ).
I am unsure of the policy behind updating a PEP on the website from a
partial (with glaring holes) source. In my rewrite there are several
sections that need to be fleshed out before I would consider pushing it
up-stream.
I'm tentative that way. ;)
It is not reasonable to demand a discussion on IRC. In fact I think it
is one of the worst media for arriving agreement over a standard. IRC
doesn't have public logs for those who didn't participate in real time
(apparently intentionally so); it is pretty hostile to people who don't
use it regularly (I am one of those); it doesn't work well for people
in different timezones. Blog comments are not much better (they are
archived, but as a medium they get too much spam and are too scattered
to be worth tracking down for other participants); the web-sig mailing
list is the preferred forum.
Understood.
If you are going to quote stuff from earlier in the thread and respond
to it using "you", please don't strip the attributions (or add them if
your mailer doesn't). Also it's best to keep the person you address in
the To: line of the message (or add them back if your mailer doesn't
automatically do this).
I do forget that not all newsreaders are the same, and that while mine
may make quoted text relate to the threading of the messages, not all
do. Apologies. Unfortunately, I subscribe and post using a Usenet
news reader, so e-mail functionality is not included. :/
In order to fix some obvious flaws due to Python 3's different
treatment of bytes and text, a much less ambitious update was produced
as PEP 3333, and labeled WSGI 1.0.1. Although this is still marked as
draft, I personally think of it as accepted; it is really just a very
small set of clarifications and disambiguations of PEP 333,
specifically for the benefit of interoperability between WSGI 1.0 apps
and servers across the Python 2 / Python 3 boundary.
PEP 3333 is an excellent solution that should be quick to adopt. My
PEP 444 rewrite takes a fundamentally different approach in an attempt
to simplify and solve broader problems than pure compatibility.
In the mean time, Alice (understandably) has looked for other forums
where she got more feedback -- I may not like IRC, but I can see how
the general apathy on the web-sig is not exactly encouraging. (This is
a general problem with Python -- we always complain that there aren't
enough people to do the work, but when someone shows up and offers to
do some work, they don't get much support. On python-dev we've
acknowledged this and are trying to get better about it.)
I have recieved valuable input from a co-conspirator on IRC (who is on
the other side of the world from me) and mentioning PEP 444 on other
mailing lists (webpy, cherrypy, pylons) has garnered some interesting
discussion.
First, it would be great if Alice could prepare a version of her draft
in the format required for PEPs, and submit it to the PEP editors.
I will make this a priority.
(If I were wrong about this, and Alice had an ax to grind, that would
change things, and it might even make sense to have multiple competing
proposals, each hopeful to once earn the WSGI 2.0 moniker. But I hope
not.)
Despite being a framework author, I am distinctly attempting to tackle
PEP 444 from an independant viewpoint. I want a workable solution for
the majority-not nessicarily /everybody/-not something that caters only
for solution A or solution B. The HTTP/1.1 server I've written is,
ATM, merely a platform from which to brainstorm ideas for PEP 444, and
to check, using code, that 444 is viable.
Alice, I hope you can live with these recommendations. While it may
place a burden on you to convert your draft to ReST and to have to
maintain it that way, I think there is a much better chance of an open
community discussion leading to a widely accepted standard if you start
following the PEP rules set out in PEP 1 (and a few other low-numbered
PEPs).
I'll give the low-numbered PEPs a thurough read through and reformat
the rewrite using ReST; I knew I was going to have to do this anyway at
some point.
- Alice
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
