[Web-SIG] WSGI in standard library
Clark C. Evans
cce at clarkevans.com
Wed Feb 15 20:12:28 CET 2006
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:26:41AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
| On 2/14/06, Clark C. Evans <cce at clarkevans.com> wrote:
| > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 12:49:00PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
| > | There are many different ways to judge "production quality". If we're
| > | talking about correct, (standards-compliant, even) code, I wholly
| > | agree.
| > Fantastic. I just don't think it is appropriate to have a "toy"
| > in the standard library.
| So we disagree fundamentally -- IMO sometimes a toy is right for the
| standard library
I'm seriously surprised to hear this. What other standard library items
are "toys"? If you really think that WSGI and its implementation are a
"toy", then let's put it in the Python documentation -- not in the
| > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 12:00:57PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
| > | Let's make it so. I propose to add wsgiref to the standard library and
| > | nothing more.
| > I propose we add wsgiref, but look at other implementations and
| > steal what ever you can from them. This is not a huge chunk of
| > code -- no reason why you can't have the best combination of
| > features and correctness.
| But it would need to be done *before* it is submitted to the standard
| What you propose sounds like a big task, while what I'm
| proposing is a simple matter of slightly cleaning up a few files and
| checkin them in.
I disagree. Given the amount of effort gone into WSGI and the amount
of experience/expertise accumulated, I think it would be foolish to
incorporate any single implementation without seriously considering
the impact of competing implementations.
| Also, "stealing whatever you can" might easily be
| considered a license for feature bloat, which would be unpythonic.
I think you're going off the rails here Guido. There is nothing
preventing a SVN repository for a week or so; with people experienced
with real-live WSGI deployments to work on a quality (but minimal)
module for Python's standard library. If you're worried about "feature
bloat" have you even looked at the 190 line headers.py? I rest my case.
I'm talking about a Sufficient _and_ Necessary implementaion of WSGI,
I'm more than happy to help, and I'm more than happy to leave final
discretion to Phillip Eby as he has demonstrated a serious command
over the problem domain.
More information about the Web-SIG