[Web-SIG] Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?
faassen at startifact.com
Wed Mar 5 09:43:41 CET 2008
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:
> 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
> substantial change.
> 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.
That's probably true. WSGI is likely not the best example for this
case, just the trigger murmur that caused me to speak out. The WSGI
spec is not the only place where people will take the opportunity to
break APIs. Unfortunately as with WSGI, API breakage may in many cases
I would like to encourage the adoption of any new such standard in the
Python 2.6 environment already, if at all possible. This way it's not
an extra step for people to be burdened with when they move to Python
3, but something they can prepare for gradually.
More information about the Web-SIG