On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 05:06:16AM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote: >I just skimmed PEP 222. I agree that the classes defined by cgi.py >are unnecessarily arcane. I wonder if it isn't better to just start >over rather than trying to add yet another new class to the already >top-heavy CGI module??? I've wondered about that, too; writing a neat request class that wraps up field values, cookies, and environment variables, and provides convenience functions for re-creating the current URL, Something like the request classes in Zope and Webware. >Regarding file uploads: you *seem* to be proposing that uploaded files >should be loaded into memory only. I've got complaints from people Mrr...? The only file upload reference simply says you shouldn't have to subclass in order to use them; it's not implying files have to be read into memory. (We have to deal with whackingly large mask layout files at work, after all.) >Regarding templating -- what's wrong with HTMLgen as a starting point? >Just that it's too big? I've never used it myself, but I've always >been impressed with its appearance. :-) I, personally, am against including templating, but it was suggested. I'm against it because there are too many solutions with different tradeoffs. Do you want a simple regex search-and-replace, constructing HTML pages as Python objects, or a full-blown minilanguage? HTML/XML-compatibile syntax, ASP-compatible syntax, Python-compatible syntax? Much better just to move templating into the "Rejected" category and give the above rationale. --amk
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4