[Web-SIG] Stuff left to be done on WSGI

[Mark Nottingham]

Could you expand on the problems that would be encountered with 
pass-through?

I don't think it would add redundancy in the CGI case, it would just 
require CGI WSGI servers to remove http headers from the environment 
and put them in the proper data structure.

WRT URIs, my preference (once again, just stating what I'd do, not 
saying that I think this MUST change) would be to base it on the 
underlying specs, and not make it so CGI-centric; i.e., have 'abs_path' 
and 'query' (these are the BNF productions in both 2396 and 2616), and 
that's it; anything else (e.g., script location) would be in the 
environment, and probably server-specific.

Cheers,


On Aug 27, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> For that matter, my preference would be for environ to be split into 
>> (environ, request_method, request_url, request_headers) or similar. 
>> However, I know it's late, and I don't want to hold things up.
>
> I think this make pass-through a bit harder, which I imagine could be 
> fairly common.  And it also would add redundancy, since environ as 
> define by CGI contains all those other objects.  If not CGI variables, 
> then we wouldn't be building on any particular spec.
>
> Also, request_url isn't actually part of environ right now.  Instead 
> there is SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO, which provides important 
> information about how to parse the URL.  There's also the (optional) 
> REQUEST_URI, which I think is useful, but only advisory.
>
> -- 
> Ian Bicking  /  ianb at colorstudy.com  / http://blog.ianbicking.org
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/