Is the deployment standard for WSGI ready?
In the PEP-3333[1] they say the following: """ After a sufficient number of servers and frameworks have implemented WSGI to provide field experience with varying deployment requirements, it may make sense to create another PEP, describing a deployment standard for WSGI servers and application frameworks. """ Did this happen already? Will this happen anytime? [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3333/
The PEP index can be found at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/ and there isn't any PEP on this. But honestly, I don't think this sort of thing should be a PEP. Look at ASGI and how that isn't a PEP and still manages to exist. Since this isn't a language-related or package-related thing I don't think it really needs to go through the PEP process. On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:07 PM Jesús Gómez <jgomo3@gmail.com> wrote:
WSGI and ASGI are similar to the Python DB-API, in the sense that they define a standard Python API. The DB-API uses Type: Informational for this purpose; and yes, it doesn't go through the standard PEP process, but instead is discussed and finalized by a SIG. Since WSGI and (probably soon) ASGI are very common API standards in Python land, they deserve to go into the PEP index as well, IMO. On 28.01.2020 19:45, Brett Cannon wrote:
-- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Jan 28 2020)
Python Projects, Coaching and Support ... https://www.egenix.com/ Python Product Development ... https://consulting.egenix.com/
::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 https://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ https://www.malemburg.com/
It's worth noting that I was discouraged from making ASGI a PEP by several Python core developers, which is why I have not been pursuing that process any further. I'm not sure I share this view, so I may come back to it in the future, but there's a reason it's not in the process right now. As for the deployment format - I feel like the presence of Docker and other deployment formats that are not Python specific has aged that part of the original PEP somewhat. I'm not sure we would even be able to back one. Andrew On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:18 PM M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
The PEP index can be found at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/ and there isn't any PEP on this. But honestly, I don't think this sort of thing should be a PEP. Look at ASGI and how that isn't a PEP and still manages to exist. Since this isn't a language-related or package-related thing I don't think it really needs to go through the PEP process. On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:07 PM Jesús Gómez <jgomo3@gmail.com> wrote:
WSGI and ASGI are similar to the Python DB-API, in the sense that they define a standard Python API. The DB-API uses Type: Informational for this purpose; and yes, it doesn't go through the standard PEP process, but instead is discussed and finalized by a SIG. Since WSGI and (probably soon) ASGI are very common API standards in Python land, they deserve to go into the PEP index as well, IMO. On 28.01.2020 19:45, Brett Cannon wrote:
-- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Jan 28 2020)
Python Projects, Coaching and Support ... https://www.egenix.com/ Python Product Development ... https://consulting.egenix.com/
::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 https://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ https://www.malemburg.com/
It's worth noting that I was discouraged from making ASGI a PEP by several Python core developers, which is why I have not been pursuing that process any further. I'm not sure I share this view, so I may come back to it in the future, but there's a reason it's not in the process right now. As for the deployment format - I feel like the presence of Docker and other deployment formats that are not Python specific has aged that part of the original PEP somewhat. I'm not sure we would even be able to back one. Andrew On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:18 PM M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
participants (4)
-
Andrew Godwin -
Brett Cannon -
Jesús Gómez -
M.-A. Lemburg