[Web-SIG] Re: Latest WSGI Draft (Phillip J. Eby)
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Aug 25 19:04:28 CEST 2004
At 11:05 AM 8/25/04 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>tony at lownds.com wrote:
>>It's a nice idea, and it would probably simplify both server and
>>and the spec. But, it forces an implementation. I think inclusion in the
>>PEP as a possible
>>change before 1.0, will give the idea plenty of discussion time.
>I agree, I don't think this need to be resolved before making it an
I'll mark it as an "Open Issue" in the PEP, providing sample code to show
how it's used.
Might as well have *something* left for folks to argue about. Maybe it'll
provide a nice distraction from PEP 318. :)
>Is it only after set_type then, not add_header('content-type',...)? Adding
>that header implicitly is rather annoying.
Yeah, but not hard for the server to fix, either. While I dislike forcing
either side to have any "boilerplate" code, there will be fewer
servers/gateways than middleware and frameworks, and being able to use
email.Message should make response header manipulation as easy for
middleware as request header manipulation is now.
More information about the Web-SIG