[Web-SIG] WSGI in standard library

[Guido van Rossum]

On 2/13/06, Clark C. Evans <cce at clarkevans.com> wrote:
> If it isn't production quality, it does not deserve to go in the
> standard library.  If this means not having WSGI in the standard
> library, so be it.

There are many different ways to judge "production quality". If we're
talking about correct, (standards-compliant, even) code, I wholly
agree. If we're talking about having the level of performance,
configurability, feature-fullness typically associated with production
quality software, I think the standard library is not the place for
it. After all, one person's required set of features is another
person's feature bloat (and I'm usually that other person :-). Given a
particular standard, it's usually not so hard to agree on the most
straightforward way to implement it using Python. However, it's *very*
hard to agree on the most performant way (since not everybody has the
same performance requirements -- e.g. space/time,
single/multi-processor etc.), let alone on features and configuration
options.

This, plus the radically different release cycle needed for production
quality software, makes inclusion in the standard library and
production quality pretty much mutually exclusive requirements (except
for the obvious correctness requirements, which are only a tiny
fraction of the set of properties going into production quality).

--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)