RetroSearch Browse

Tue Sep 21 19:10:10 CEST 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/103886.html

At 12:55 PM 9/21/2010 -0400, Ian Bicking wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Chris McDonough 
><<mailto:chrism at plope.com>chrism at plope.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:09 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:
> > While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would
> > be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3
> > stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle
> > out implementation questions.
>
>If a WSGI-1-compatible protocol seems more sensible to folks, I'm
>personally happy to defer discussion on PEP 444 or any other
>backwards-incompatible proposal.
>
>
>I think both make sense, making WSGI 1 sensible for Python 3 (as 
>well as other small errata like the size hint) doesn't detract from 
>PEP 444 at all, IMHO.

Yep.  I agree.  I do, however, want to get these amendments settled 
and make sure they get carried over to whatever spec is the successor 
to PEP 333.  I've had a lot of trouble following exactly what was 
changed in 444, and I'm a tad worried that several new ambiguities 
may be being introduced.  So, solidifying 333 a bit might be helpful 
if it gives a good baseline against which to diff 444 (or whatever).

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/103886.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] Backup plan: WSGI 1 Addenda and wsgiref update for Py3