[Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] wsgiref doc draft; reviews/patches wanted

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Jun 9 18:01:46 CEST 2006

At 02:56 PM 6/7/2006 -0400, Joe Gregorio wrote:
>1. It's not really clear from the abstract 'what' this library
>provides. You might want
>    to consider moving the text from 1.1 up to the same level as the abstract.


>2.  In section 1.1 you might want to consider dropping the sentence:
>"Only authors
>     of web servers and programming frameworks need to know every detail..."
>     It doesn't offer any concrete information and just indirectly
>      makes WSGI look complicated.

That bit was taken from AMK's draft; I'm going to trust his intuition here 
as to why he thought it was desirable to say this.

>3. From the abstract:  "Having a standard interface makes it easy to use a
>       WSGI-supporting application with a number of different web servers."
>      is a little akward, how about:
>     "Having a standard interface makes it easy to use an application
>     that supports WSGI with a number of different web servers."


>4. I believe the order of submodules presented is important and think that
>    they should be listed with 'handlers' and 'simple_server' first:

I agree that the order is important, but I intentionally chose the current 
order to be a gentle slope of complexity, from the near-trivial functions 
on up to the server/handler framework last.  I'm not sure what ordering 
principle you're suggesting to use instead.

>5. You might consider moving 'headers' into 'util'. Of course, you could
>     go all the way in simplifying and move 'validate' in there too.

Not and maintain backward compatibility.  There is, after all, code in the 
field using these modules for about a year and a half now.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list