[Web-SIG] [Python-Dev] wsgiref doc draft; reviews/patches wanted
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Jun 9 18:01:46 CEST 2006
At 02:56 PM 6/7/2006 -0400, Joe Gregorio wrote:
>1. It's not really clear from the abstract 'what' this library
>provides. You might want
> to consider moving the text from 1.1 up to the same level as the abstract.
>2. In section 1.1 you might want to consider dropping the sentence:
> of web servers and programming frameworks need to know every detail..."
> It doesn't offer any concrete information and just indirectly
> makes WSGI look complicated.
That bit was taken from AMK's draft; I'm going to trust his intuition here
as to why he thought it was desirable to say this.
>3. From the abstract: "Having a standard interface makes it easy to use a
> WSGI-supporting application with a number of different web servers."
> is a little akward, how about:
> "Having a standard interface makes it easy to use an application
> that supports WSGI with a number of different web servers."
>4. I believe the order of submodules presented is important and think that
> they should be listed with 'handlers' and 'simple_server' first:
I agree that the order is important, but I intentionally chose the current
order to be a gentle slope of complexity, from the near-trivial functions
on up to the server/handler framework last. I'm not sure what ordering
principle you're suggesting to use instead.
>5. You might consider moving 'headers' into 'util'. Of course, you could
> go all the way in simplifying and move 'validate' in there too.
Not and maintain backward compatibility. There is, after all, code in the
field using these modules for about a year and a half now.
More information about the Web-SIG