[Web-SIG] Future of WSGI

[Sylvain Hellegouarch]

Henry Precheur a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:16:05PM +0100, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
>   
>> Though it shouldn't be considered as a problem, the fact that probably 
>> no existing framework actually use the raw dictionary (there is, in 
>> almost all cases, a wrapping into a friendlier object), one might wonder 
>> why keeping such a low level interface rather than directly provide a 
>> higher level interface is a good idea. After all creating those 
>> dictionaries for no good reason aside from sending them to the next 
>> layer which will map them into a WebOb, a yaro, a cherrypy request, or 
>> zope request, etc. seems slightly pointless
>>     
>
> 1. Would you say that POSIX is useless because there are lots of
>    libraries and applications build on top of it? Why not implement
>    those libraries and applications directly without using POSIX?
>   

If I'm not mistaken that's what people do when they want performances 
rather than portability. But point taken.

> 2. Guess what: WebOb, Werkzeug, Yaro, Django, CherryPy, and the others
>    have a different interfaces for their Request/Response objects.
>    Because for Request/Response there's hardly one-size fits all.
>    There's certainly some common ground, but every framework has
>    different needs.
>   

Well thank you for the reminder but I kind of knew that ;)
It doesn't mean it's neither elegant nor efficient to create such a low 
level object.

>   
>> (I'm not versed into Python internals, but doesn't it have also a cost
>> of creating rather useless objects repeatedly like that?)
>>     
>
> The dictionary is passed as a reference like every Python objects. So it
> doesn't cost anything to use it instead of an object.
>
>   
I talked about object creation not object passing.

- Sylvain