Re: twisted

On Mar 30, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Steven Armstrong wrote:

>> And just between us, I think I would be okay with forcing people to
>> install WSGI, or installing it for them, but that might just be 
>> because
>> I'm enamored of it now, and think that it's critical to the future of
>> Python on the web.
>>
>
> Why? If the user doesn't need/want the WSGI stuff he shouldn't be 
> forced
> to use it. After all it's another layer of code that can contain errors
> and consumes CPU, memory and time.

A WSGI implementation overhead is *a function*.  An implementation on 
top of CGI spans a page, and is included in the PEP.  Cry me a river on 
this one, I'd love to eat a couple hundred bytes and a few 
*micro*seconds in exchange for throwing away a bunch of code.

> I agree that WSGI is important for Python web programming.
> Altough for me it doesn't really go far enough. I'ld prefer something
> like the Java Servlet spec, that is, a less bloated and pythonized
> variant. There's still so meny things missing in WSGI, like session
> handling and all.
>
> This is is one section where Pythons batteries are missing.

So in one paragraph you're saying it should do less (specifically, 
nothing), but then you want it to do more?  Beyond that, you want it to 
do more in a way that doesn't really have any relevance to pyblosxom at 
all?  That doesn't really make sense.  Sessions have real fundamental 
problems and adoption of them forces you into making very specific 
decisions about how the to support them is designed and how 
applications using them are to be deployed.  WSGI is far lower level 
than that, it defines the I/O boundary and nothing else.  This is a 
good thing.

-bob



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click