On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:09 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:
> While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would
> be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3
> stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle
> out implementation questions.

If a WSGI-1-compatible protocol seems more sensible to folks, I'm
personally happy to defer discussion on PEP 444 or any other
backwards-incompatible proposal.

I think both make sense, making WSGI 1 sensible for Python 3 (as well as other small errata like the size hint) doesn't detract from PEP 444 at all, IMHO.">

(original) (raw)

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Chris McDonough <chrism@plope.com> wrote:

On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:09 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:
> While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would
> be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3
> stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle
> out implementation questions.

If a WSGI-1-compatible protocol seems more sensible to folks, I'm
personally happy to defer discussion on PEP 444 or any other
backwards-incompatible proposal.

I think both make sense, making WSGI 1 sensible for Python 3 (as well as other small errata like the size hint) doesn't detract from PEP 444 at all, IMHO.


--
Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org