[Web-SIG] wsgi.url_vars feedback
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Nov 1 16:54:39 CET 2006
At 05:42 PM 10/31/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>At 04:17 PM 10/31/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>>>Anyway, I've updated the spec:
>>>Is everyone happy with this version?
>>I still think it should be url_args rather than url_vars -- I don't see
>>any reason why they could be considered "variables" rather than
>>arguments. :) But other than that, and the desire to see clarification
>>about */** as an intended/supported use case, I give it a +1.
>I was thinking about variables similar to GET and POST variables, which
>seems to be the most common way to refer to them. (Of course GET
>variables are actually query string variables, which is orthogonal to the
>request method, but so it goes.)
That would actually be another reason *not* to use "vars", because these
aren't the same things. They're something that's framework-specific, not
part of the nature of HTTP. I would actually suggest that url_params would
be better, except that URLs *do* have something called parameters.
If you *must* have vars, please call it wsgi.routing_vars or
wsgi.dispatch_vars instead, so at least it will be clearly distinguishable
from other URL variables. In fact, wsgi.dispatch_arguments would probably
be the *most* descriptive name for what these actually are. Note that
there isn't any requirement here that the data even comes from the URL!
More information about the Web-SIG