[Web-SIG] WSGI in standard library

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Wed Feb 15 20:27:01 CET 2006

On 2/15/06, Clark C. Evans <cce at clarkevans.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:26:41AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> | So we disagree fundamentally -- IMO sometimes a toy is right for the
> | standard library
> I'm seriously surprised to hear this. What other standard library items
> are "toys"?

BaseHTTPServer and its subclasses. Probably even SocketServer -- a
non-toy version would be something like Twisted.

> If you really think that WSGI and its implementation are a
> "toy", then let's put it in the Python documentation -- not in the
> standard library.

Maybe we have different definitions of toys? Working toys are quite
useful -- I test most of my servers with BaseHTTPServer, but I would
never dream of deploying that way.

> I disagree.  Given the amount of effort gone into WSGI and the amount
> of experience/expertise accumulated, I think it would be foolish to
> incorporate any single implementation without seriously considering
> the impact of competing implementations.

I think we have exhausted the amount of disagreement. Let's just agree
we disagree. It would be more productive if you started discussing
*specific* cases where you think wsgiref can be improved upon by
borrowing code/features/ideas from other WSGI servers without damaging
its "as simple as possible but no simpler" approach.

> | Also, "stealing whatever you can" might easily be
> | considered a license for feature bloat, which would be unpythonic.
> I think you're going off the rails here Guido.  There is nothing
> preventing a SVN repository for a week or so; with people experienced
> with real-live WSGI deployments to work on a quality (but minimal)
> module for Python's standard library.  If you're worried about "feature
> bloat" have you even looked at the 190 line headers.py?  I rest my case.

What case? It's totally reasonable code implementing a fairly complete
mapping API. Smells similar to rfc822.py actually.

> I'm talking about a Sufficient _and_ Necessary implementaion of WSGI,
> I'm more than happy to help, and I'm more than happy to leave final
> discretion to Phillip Eby as he has demonstrated a serious command
> over the problem domain.

If there's anything in wsgiref you think should be changed, please be specific.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list