[Web-SIG] Is PEP 3333 the final solution for WSGI on Python 3?

P.J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Oct 22 02:16:57 CEST 2010

At 10:35 AM 10/22/2010 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>Any one care to comment on my blog post?
>As far as web framework developers commenting, Armin at:
>has said:
>   """Hopefully not. WSGI could do better and there is a proposal for
>that (444)."""
>So, looks he is very cool on the idea.
>No other developers of actual web frameworks has commented at all on
>PEP 3333 from what I can see.

Just out of curiosity, Graham, isn't PEP 3333 basically only a slight 
modification to what you yourself proposed and implemented in 
mod_wsgi for Python 3?

My guess is that there's been no comment because there's really not 
much to say about it.  The most controversial thing about it was 
Python-Dev's objection to modifying PEP 333 in place -- and that's 
the *only* reason why it's a new PEP at all.

(Indeed, I originally just made the discussed amendments to PEP 333, 
and specifically wanted to avoid having a new PEP number in order to 
create unnecessary additional discussion or questions.)

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list