[Web-SIG] Regarding the WSGI draft

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 02:27 PM 8/27/04 -0400, Steve Holden wrote:
>I am not sure that's correct. My 2.3.4 version contains the following comment:
>
>"""HTTP server base class.
>
>Note: the class in this module doesn't implement any HTTP request; see
>SimpleHTTPServer for simple implementations of GET, HEAD and POST
>(including CGI scripts).  It does, however, optionally implement HTTP/1.1 
>persistent connections, as of version 0.3.
>"""
>
>and there's code in there that only complains if the HTTP version is 
>greater than 1.1.

It's not anywhere *near* RFC-compliant, though, based on our discussions of 
RFC 2616 here as regards e.g. "100 expect/continue".



>Would be neat if you could do it, though it's a demanding and error-prone 
>task to generate code on such short notice.

It wouldn't be that short; there's already a WSGIServer.py in my CVS based 
on the December draft; the differences between that and today's WSGI are 
minor when it comes to the semantics.  It doesn't really offer decent error 
handling, but then again neither does BaseHTTPServer or CGIServer.