[Web-SIG] WSGI and start_response
graham.dumpleton at gmail.com
Tue Apr 13 13:39:30 CEST 2010
On 13 April 2010 21:20, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan at ochtman.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:13, Graham Dumpleton
> <graham.dumpleton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is no such thing as a WSGI 2.0 PEP and there is no proper
>> concensus either on what it should look like. Thus if you see anything
>> claiming to implement WSGI 2.0, then it isn't and you should only view
>> it as an experimental proposal. You are warned. :-)
> Do you (or someone else) have a status on where WSGI 2 is? IIRC WSGI 1
> isn't really usable with Python 3.x, so it seems about time we get
> something going again (AIUI this is blocking Werkzeug from being
> ported to 3.x, for example).
WSGI 2.0 isn't about Python 3.X, it is about removing start_response().
Python 3.X support can be catered for by clarifications in the WSGI
1.0 specification and to a degree how Python 3.X is implemented is
dictated by existing practice in the form of what wsgiref implemented
in Python 3.1. The Apache/mod_wsgi implementation has had Python 3.X
support for over a year using the same interpretation. I believe
latest CherryPy WSGI server code is also providing Python 3.X support.
Apache/mod_wsgi tried to push the issue of a new
definition/specification to cater for Python 3.X by actually
identifying itself as WSGI 1.1. The attempts at ratifying that didn't
happen however, but then no one has turned around either to complain
about Apache/mod_wsgi identifying itself as WSGI 1.1 and so it has
been left that way and not reverted to WSGI 1.0.
So, in effect existing practice has determined how WSGI on Python 3.X
should be implemented and given how long this has been going on,
nothing is likely to change that now. You can however see a summary of
how it is being interpreted at:
More information about the Web-SIG