[Web-SIG] Future of WSGI
chris.dent at gmail.com
Wed Nov 25 12:42:15 CET 2009
On Nov 24, 2009, at 10:16 PM, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
> Though it shouldn't be considered as a problem, the fact that
> probably no existing framework actually use the raw dictionary
> (there is, in almost all cases, a wrapping into a friendlier
> object), one might wonder why keeping such a low level interface
> rather than directly provide a higher level interface is a good
> idea. After all creating those dictionaries for no good reason aside
> from sending them to the next layer which will map them into a
> WebOb, a yaro, a cherrypy request, or zope request, etc. seems
> slightly pointless (I'm not versed into Python internals, but
> doesn't it have also a cost of creating rather useless objects
> repeatedly like that?) I know WSGI tries hard not to force into one
> implementation but still...
I use the raw dictionary in TiddlyWeb <http://tiddlyweb.com/>, and I
like it that way. I've resisted using existing frameworks exactly
because they _do_ package the WSGI stuff up in what I perceive to be
complex classes that obscure the overall flexibility and transparency
presented by the WSGI dict.
I prefer middleware that just uses the dict that it gets, maybe making
a few tweaks or additions and then passes it along to the next layer.
This behavior is _exactly_ what makes WSGI great and useful.
Beyond that I just have a knee jerk reaction to the creation of
gratuitous classes for something that is essentially a (very flexible)
I can (barely) relate to some of the complaints that start_response is
a pain in the ass, but environ, to me, is not broken.
On start_response, I find that I can mess with it (replacing it with
something else, usually) before I go deeper into a stack of WSGI
applications is sometimes useful, so I would be disappointed if I lost
More information about the Web-SIG