Re: WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Hi,

On 05/01/2016 13:09, Luke Plant wrote:
> Just to add my 2c - as another Django developer, I agree completely with
> Aymeric here. My own experience was that the HTTP handling done by WSGI
> (especially URL handing, HTTP header mangling, os.environ as a
> destination - all due to CGI compatibility - and semi-broken unicode
> handling) only made things harder for us. We would much rather have
> dealt with raw streams of bytes and done all HTTP parsing ourselves.
>
> Like Graham said, for HTTP/2 let's ignore the history of WSGI and start
> from scratch with a API that actually serves us well.
Alright. I bite: if it would not be done that way you had different 
problems.  In particular a problem that comes up very often is that 
people want the PATH_INFO and SCRIPT_NAME to not be encoded.  That 
however completely breaks any form of routing you would want to do the 
moment they contain unicode characters.

I keep having the argument about PATH_INFO and the header semantics 
constantly with people and i'm absolutely convinced (from the theory 
behind it as well as playing around with ideas for PEP 444 a few years 
ago) that it only gets worse the moment you leave the WSGI territory too 
far.

Likewise I wonder how many people that ask for more low level access 
concerned themselves with chunked requests/responses, transport 
encodings and all the complexity that servers do for you.  Yes, quite a 
bit of this is broken in WSGI but would have been trivial to fix without 
throwing the whole specification into the toilette :)


Regards,
Armin
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org