[Web-SIG] WSGI in standard library

[Alan Kennedy]

[Peter Hunt]
> I think CherryPy's WSGI server should go in: it's stable, and the 
> best-performing WSGI HTTP server out there.

I disagree.

I think that if a WSGI server is to go into the standard library, it 
should be the most basic one possible, e.g. one that builds on the 
*HttpServer.py hierarchy already there, and one that makes it as easy as 
possible for coders to understand how WSGI works.

HTTP servers can be complex beasts. Security is a major consideration, 
robustness and stability being next. Performance is also a major 
concern, with flexibility and ease-of-use being important as well.

That's too many concerns to balance against each other for a python 
library module.

Instead, I think the right approach is to continue with the existing 
approach: put the most basic possible WSGI server in the standard 
library, for educational purposes only, and a warning that it shouldn't 
really be used for production purposes.

The following quote is from the docstring of the CGIHTTPServer module

"""
In all cases, the implementation is intentionally naive -- all
requests are executed sychronously.

SECURITY WARNING: DON'T USE THIS CODE UNLESS YOU ARE INSIDE A FIREWALL
-- it may execute arbitrary Python code or external programs.
"""

And that's a good thing. If I really want to use python CGI, then I 
should find a robust HTTP server which supports it, e.g. Apache.

The same reasoning should apply to WSGI, IMHO.

Just another €0,02.

Regards,

Alan.