[Web-SIG] Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
ianb at colorstudy.com
Wed Mar 5 04:53:49 CET 2008
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Personally I believe that WSGI 1.0 should die along with Python 2.X. I
> believe that WSGI 2.0 should be developed to replace it and the
> introduction of Python 3.0 would be a great time to do that given that
> people are going to have to change their code anyway and that code
> isn't then likely to be backward compatible with Python 2.X.
I don't believe it should just *die*. But I agree that this is a good
time to revisit the specification. Especially since I have no idea how
the change to unicode text would effect the WSGI environment. Having
the environment hold bytes seems weird, but having it hold unicode is a
I don't think it will be as bad as Martijn thinks, because the libraries
people use will probably have relatively few interface changes. Pylons
and WebOb for instance should maintain largely the same interface (and
they already expose unicode when possible). None of the changes
proposed for WSGI 2 would change this.
If I'm maintaining two versions of a library (one for Python 2, one for
Python 3), then at least I'd like to get a little benefit out of it, and
a revised WSGI would give some benefit.
I think we might still need some kind of WSGI 1.1 to clarify what WSGI 1
(-like semantics) means in a Python 3.0 environment. Creating adapters
from WSGI 1 to WSGI 2 should be easy enough that we could still offer
some support for minimally-translated WSGI code.
More information about the Web-SIG