web frameworks that support Python 3

[Graham Dumpleton]

On Aug 26, 12:19 pm, exar... at twistedmatrix.com wrote:
> On 01:41 am, a... at pythoncraft.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><e9b627c8-eb88-4312-8777-1b0064186... at v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> >Graham Dumpleton  <graham.dumple... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Aug 24, 6:34=A0am, Sebastian Wiesner <basti.wies... at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >>>In any case, there is bottle [1], which provides a *very minimal*
> >>>framewo=
> >>rk
> >>>for WSGI web development. =A0Don't expect too much, it is really
> >>>small, a=
> >>nd
> >>>doesn't do much more than routing and minimal templating.
>
> >>>However, it is the only Python-3-compatible web framework I know of.
>
> >>>[1]http://bottle.paws.de/page/start
>
> >>There is one big flaw with your claim. That is the there is no WSGI
> >>specification for Python 3.0 as yet. Anything that claims to work with
> >>WSGI and Python 3.0 is just a big guess as far as how WSGI for Python
> >>3.0 may work.
>
> >Perhaps you meant "library" instead of "specification"?
>
> He meant specification.
>
> Python 3.x is different enough from any Python 2.x release that PEP 333
> no longer completely makes sense.  It needs to be modified to be
> applicable to Python 3.x.
>
> So, in the sense that there is no written down, generally agreed upon
> specification for what WSGI on Python 3.x means, there is no...
> specification.
>
> There is, however, apparently, a library. ;)

If you are talking about wsgiref then that was somewhat broken in
Python 3.0. In Python 3.1 it works for some definition of works. The
problem again being that since WSGI specification hasn't been updated
for Python 3.X, that how it works will likely not match what the
specification may eventually say. This will become more and more of a
problem if WSGI specification isn't updated. At the moment the
discussion is going around in circles, although, if I put my
optimistic face on, I would say it is a slow inward spiral. Not quite
a death spiral at least.

Graham