[Python-Dev] 3.x as the official release

[Chris McDonough]

For reference, I have developed a spec and an (untested) reference
implementation of a WSGI successor I've given the name "Web3".  Ian is
not hot on this spec (he prefers native strings as environ keys).  I'm
definitely not going to write a WebOb analogue, so I'd more or less
given up trying to promote it.  But it's here for consideration.  Given
that nobody else has written this all out in spec form, it may be
useful:

http://github.com/mcdonc/web3

- C


On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:11 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
> release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
> can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgiref from the
> stdlib (which sounds unlikely but may not be any more incompatible
> than making it work properly :-).
> 
> I want to emphasize that I am *not* a stakeholder so my preference for
> bytes or Unicode shouldn't matter; that said, given WSGI's traditional
> emphasis on using the lowest-level, vanilla standard datatypes (e.g.
> you can't even subclass dict let alone provide another kind of mapping
> -- it has to be a real dict) it makes sense to me that the values
> should be bytes, os.environ notwithstanding. The keys probably could
> be Unicode (HTTP headers are required to use only 7-bit ASCII
> characters anyways right?). But I'd be happy to be shown the error of
> my ways (or given a link showing prior discussion of the matter --
> preferably with a conclusion :-).
> 
> --Guido
> 
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <jacob at jacobian.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Fundamentally; I would gladly hold up 3.2 (just my opinion) for the
> >> needed fixes to the standard lib [...]
> >
> > I think I should share a little anecdote at this point:
> >
> > Earlier in the year I worked for a while on Django/Py3. It's actually
> > not that hard of a task (because I'm building on the work by MvL and
> > some of Greg Wilson's students!) and I quickly got a simple app
> > working locally. So the next step for me was to see about putting the
> > app into production... and that's where the wheels fell off.
> >
> > So that's where I stopped. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing to
> > expend the effort to get Django ported if I can't put it into
> > production. Most of us working on Django are going to feel the same
> > way, I suspect.
> >
> > Further, I can say with some confidence that until the WSGI issue is
> > sorted the Python web world isn't going to have much enthusiasm for
> > Python 3.
> >
> > I'm trying not to sound overly negative here -- really, I can't *WAIT*
> > to be able to switch to Py3! But until I have a bunch of
> > interoperable, robust WSGI servers like I do on Python 2 -- modwsgi,
> > uwsgi, cherrypy, gunicorn, ... -- Python 3 is going to remain a pipe
> > dream.
> >
> > Jacob
> > _______________________________________________
> > Python-Dev mailing list
> > Python-Dev at python.org
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
> >
> 
> 
>