[Web-SIG] WSGI for Python 3

[P.J. Eby]

At 01:37 AM 8/27/2010 +0200, Armin Ronacher wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Is there a status update on that now I missed?  Did something decide 
>on bytes for the environment values or are we still unsure about that?

To the extent we're "unsure", I think the holdup is simply that 
nobody has tried doing an all-bytes WSGI implementation -- unless of 
course you count all our Python 2.x experience as experience with an 
all-bytes implementation.  ;-)

(Of course, that experience won't help us with Python 3 stdlib issues.)


>At that point I don't care at all about what is decided on as long 
>as something is decided.  Can someone please stand up and just do that? :)

Essentially the problem right now is that unless such a choice is 
made, there's little hope of getting the stdlib issues to be 
resolved, because we can't exactly file bug reports against the 
stdlib if we don't know what we want it to do.  ;-)

My personal inclination is to define WSGI 2 as a bytes-oriented 
protocol, and then encourage people to port to WSGI 2 before moving 
to Python 3.

In theory, if we did it correctly it could actually minimize the 
porting pain for Python 3.

In practice, I'm not sure how to do this, as I lack experience with 
2to3 at the moment, or any production experience with Python 3 whatsoever.