On 2011-01-06 21:35:24 -0800, Jacob Kaplan-Moss said:
And I'm feeling incredibly disheartened.
As the author of my own small WSGI framework (with world-wide, though
still limited use) I have the luxury of being able to embrace
experimental technologies. The lack of WSGI capability in Python 3
thoroughly depressed me for the same reasons you describe.
Then I got fed up, tracked down something to tackle, and picked up PEP
444 knowing full well that PEP 3333 existed and was nearer to
completion. PEP 3333 -should- be ratified ASAP in order for developers
to begin to move forward. PEP 444, despite the seeming high blood
pressure on the Web-SIG list, is a long, long way off, and I recognize
that. Despite my boundless enthusiasm for debate, I certainly hope
everyone else realizes this, too. ;)
I wrote an experimental proof-of-concept HTTP/1.1 server against PEP
444 (and continue to update it as my rewrite progresses) over the
course of a week. It just so happened to be stupidly performant under
ideal conditions (see the webpy mailing list for a more real-world
comparison against a CPython extension-based server), extremely simple
code to maintain and experiment on, and will continue to be my/the
"reference implementation" for PEP 444.
Other than mod_wsgi, are there any PEP 3333-compliant (or
near-compliant) components in the wild? Enough to bring a framework to
life in Python 3? What I see is the chicken-and-egg problem endemic
with Python 3: developers wait on upstream to port before they do, and
upstream developers are either waiting themselves or don't see the
demand to port.
Any standard needs early adopters / implementors in order to truly test
the specification; without such, much of the discussion is pure
thought-experiment and practical problems may arise after the standard
is ratified, which is never good. ;)
With the Marrow suite I'm attempting to brute-force the Python 3
problem domain within the context of testing PEP 444 and providing
(after ratification) a solid meta-framework foundation a la Paste.
Yes, that means I'm re-inventing enough wheels for a 6-axel rig, but it
also means (in theory) I should have a solid understanding of the
strengths and weaknesses of the PEP. (The WebOb equivalent is only
partially complete as of this writing.)
A few months ago, PJE posted PEP 3333. It looked good... and then
nothing happened. I tried to prod things forward, and some more
discussion ensued... and now it looks like it's stalling again. Each
time, discussion of PEP 444 seems to derail discussion of PEP 3333.
I see the opposite in regards to recent traffic on the Web-SIG; PEP 444
discussion has encouraged PEP 3333 discussion. See the "Declaring PEP
3333 accepted" thread (encouraged by Guido himself).
At this rate, I really wonder if it'll be another two years before we
have a working WSGI for Python 3. I hope I'm being pessimistic. Prove
me wrong. Please.
I'll do what I can. :)
Can we please, please, PLEASE, pause discussion of PEP 444 until PEP
3333 is finalized?
This is something I've seen fairly often around PEP 444 threads;
instead of reviving (or starting a new) PEP 3333 thread, a complaint is
levied against PEP 444 discussion itself. That doesn't help. ;)
Truthfully, this month already surpasses the amount of activity
(post-wise) of the last three months combined, and includes quite a
number of posts about PEP 3333. (PEP 3333 has had no significant
discussion - again, by post count - since October.)
- 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
