Re: WSGI 'pre-PEP'

Michael C. Neel wrote:
> I'm sure some of the Object Craft guys and others on this list are also 
> on the Web SIG list as well, and have seen the threads on this 
> proposal.  I've posted to the SIG before and will still say I do not 
> completely understand what problem this pep is trying to solve.  In the 
> past i've not really bothered to understand, but now in the context of 
> is it something I might need to address in SnakeSkin or not I curious on 
> other thoughts here.
> 
> The pep seems to want to alter the way an albatross app is setup and 
> used.  The goal seems to be gaining the ability of taking the 
> application to any server, but i think it misses the concept of there 
> may be a framework (like albatross) inbetween the server and app.  Also, 
> albatross already abstracts this though request objects, and after the 
> last round of refactoring these are trivial to add.
> 
> So, like I said I'm not 100% on what the pep is actually proposing, but 
> I'm curious for the users and developers of Albatross to weigh in on 
> this and how it affects our doesn't affect albatross.

Generally speaking it would be good to be able to throw away code from 
Albatross if there were standard modules that provided the same capability.

I suspect that every web toolkit that offers multiple deployment options 
has something like the Request class for each option.  If all toolkits 
were able to use a standard module or package from the Python library 
then everyone would benefit.

My reading of the pre-PEP is that the changes would be (mostly) 
invisible to the application programmer.

- Dave

-- 
http://www.object-craft.com.au