[Web-SIG] Re: Latest WSGI Draft (Phillip J. Eby)

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 11:05 AM 8/25/04 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>tony at lownds.com wrote:
>>It's a nice idea, and it would probably simplify both server and
>>application code
>>and the spec. But, it forces an implementation. I think inclusion in the
>>PEP as a possible
>>change before 1.0, will give the idea plenty of discussion time.
>
>I agree, I don't think this need to be resolved before making it an 
>official PEP.

I'll mark it as an "Open Issue" in the PEP, providing sample code to show 
how it's used.

Might as well have *something* left for folks to argue about.  Maybe it'll 
provide a nice distraction from PEP 318.  :)


>Is it only after set_type then, not add_header('content-type',...)? Adding 
>that header implicitly is rather annoying.

Yeah, but not hard for the server to fix, either.  While I dislike forcing 
either side to have any "boilerplate" code, there will be fewer 
servers/gateways than middleware and frameworks, and being able to use 
email.Message should make response header manipulation as easy for 
middleware as request header manipulation is now.