[Web-SIG] Regarding the WSGI draft
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Aug 27 21:32:18 CEST 2004
At 02:27 PM 8/27/04 -0400, Steve Holden wrote:
>I am not sure that's correct. My 2.3.4 version contains the following comment:
>"""HTTP server base class.
>Note: the class in this module doesn't implement any HTTP request; see
>SimpleHTTPServer for simple implementations of GET, HEAD and POST
>(including CGI scripts). It does, however, optionally implement HTTP/1.1
>persistent connections, as of version 0.3.
>and there's code in there that only complains if the HTTP version is
>greater than 1.1.
It's not anywhere *near* RFC-compliant, though, based on our discussions of
RFC 2616 here as regards e.g. "100 expect/continue".
>Would be neat if you could do it, though it's a demanding and error-prone
>task to generate code on such short notice.
It wouldn't be that short; there's already a WSGIServer.py in my CVS based
on the December draft; the differences between that and today's WSGI are
minor when it comes to the semantics. It doesn't really offer decent error
handling, but then again neither does BaseHTTPServer or CGIServer.
More information about the Web-SIG