[Web-SIG] Bowing out (was Re: A trivial template API counter-proposal)
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Mon Feb 6 17:53:38 CET 2006
At 08:02 PM 2/5/2006 +0000, Alan Kennedy wrote:
>Looking at this in an MVC context, the application is responsible for
>populating the Model (user namespace), and selecting which View
>(template<->media-type) is suitable for return to the user. Templates
>should not vary media types. HTTP headers do need to be set for
>different templates/media-types. But that should be the responsibility
>of the HTTP application, not the template, which should be unaware of
>the application contect in which it is running, except for the contents
>of the Model/user-namespace.
As soon as you start talking about what templates should or should not do
(as opposed to what they *already* do), you've stopped writing an inclusive
spec and have wandered off into evangelizing a particular framework philosophy.
OTOH, before I first proposed WSGI in 2003, nobody here seemed especially
interested in writing inclusive specs anyway, and I rather get the
impression they still aren't now, my "insistence" (as Ian calls it)
notwithstanding.
What I've been trying to do with both WSGI and with this spec is to create
something that deals with the *actual* complexity and diversity of Python
web frameworks as they exist today, rather than reducing the diversity to
match whatever the currently popular paradigm is. This wasn't a popular
approach when I introduced WSGI, either, but in the case of WSGI it was
easy to point to all the previously-failed attempts at standardizing
request/response objects due to people not taking backward compatibility
into account.
At this point it has become clear to me that even if I spent my days and
nights writing a compelling spec of what I'm proposing and then trying to
sell it to the Web SIG, it would be at best a 50/50 chance of getting
through, and in the process it appears that I'd be burning through every
bit of goodwill I might have previously possessed here. And, although I
believe that the approach currently being taken to this spec is divisive of
the community, I have to admit that since my attempts at education about
the issues hasn't been particularly successful, it would appear that
continuing to argue about it is no less divisive than what I'm arguing
against. (For that matter, it's not even clear to me any more that most of
the people on whose behalf I'm fighting would even realize yet why the
future I want would be beneficial for them.)
I really expected more people to see the benefits of the WSGI embedding
approach, though, and although I've gotten a few private mails of support,
it isn't anywhere near the level I thought it would be. Given the intense
pressure that some parties are putting on having a spec *right* now, I
don't feel that I can reasonably deliver a competing spec without
interfering with my work and personal commitments in the next few
weeks. Since I've already been using most of my "Python community
contribution" time in the last week arguing about this, at this point it
seems the community would be better served by me devoting that time to
working on setuptools, rather than continuing to fight for a vision that
hardly anybody else believes in. And, I'd rather save whatever karma I
have left here for something with a better chance of success.
Good luck with the spec.
More information about the Web-SIG
mailing list