[Web-SIG] PEP222 and python on the server?
ianb at colorstudy.com
Thu Jun 9 20:41:52 CEST 2005
Hope you don't mind, I copied this bad to web-sig...
Iwan Vosloo wrote:
> I suppose you may be right. Somehow we have gotten used to having "a
> request object" and "a response object". And perhaps, in an
> absent-minded way we expect this sort of thing in another form than
> provided by the WSGI? For example, I would prefer to query an object
> for something like req.headers['Content-Type'] (an expression close
> to the HTTP spec), and not work with a dictionary that uses a naming
> convention to do it (which feels one level removed from HTTP).
> Another: I'd prefer to have a response object I can pass around and
> add headers and whatever else to it - assuming that something will,
> when its time to send the thing, send everything in the right order,
> Force of habit?
Well, no one is going to argue that WSGI give pretty objects to work
with. WSGI is very thorough and non-limiting. It also avoids any
discussion of mixed case vs. underscores, and other details which are
hard to decide on, while also being quite unproductive. I think of it
as being aesthetically neutral. There's some other useful aspects of it
*But*, you shouldn't program directly to it, unless you are trying to be
framework neutral (or maybe really low level), and even then it isn't
always necessary. So it's expected there should be wrappers; especially
request wrappers, but response wrappers are also fine (but they do
interupt the call sequence a little in comparison to request wrappers).
> Regarding the WSGI - are there plans to have an implementation of it
> in the standard library?
No, there aren't any plans. I wasn't really sure what would go in the
standard library, though now I'm thinking it would be really good to get
some stuff in there. In particular, I'd like to see SimpleHTTPServer
extended to do WSGI, and a WSGI server added to cgi. I don't know how
practical it is to add new servers to the standard library, but the ones
that are already there could definitely support it. On the application
side the cgi library mostly is sufficient, though it could probably use
some relevant examples and documentation -- right now you have to read
the source of that module to get the full FieldStorage signature.
Ian Bicking / ianb at colorstudy.com / http://blog.ianbicking.org
More information about the Web-SIG