[Web-SIG] WSGI 2
randy at rcs-comp.com
Wed Aug 5 21:45:48 CEST 2009
Tres Seaver wrote:
> ideally, the
> framework will do this in a way which keeps the application writer
> blissfully ignorant of the distinction.
As an application developer, I would like to agree with the above. I am
going to rely on a good framework to handle a lot of these issues. It
seems that a lot of the discussion, while over my head, assumes that
application developers are going to be working directly with WSGI.
Technically, that is possible, but I think you should remember that most
application developers are going to rely on a framework to give them a
usable API. My opinion, as an application developer, would be to keep
WSGI as clean as possible and allow the frameworks to handle creating a
good API that gives options for handling byte/character encoding issues.
Its a lot easier to change/update a framework than a spec. Keep WSGI as
simple as possible and let the frameworks manage the more complicated
aspects of character encoding and clean APIs.
Just my $0.02.
RCS Computers & Web Solutions
"Whether, then, you eat or drink or
whatever you do, do all to the glory
of God." 1 Cor 10:31
More information about the Web-SIG