[Web-SIG] Is PEP 3333 the final solution for WSGI on Python 3?

[P.J. Eby]

At 02:26 PM 10/23/2010 +0300, Armin Ronacher wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 10/22/10 2:35 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>has said:
>>
>>    """Hopefully not. WSGI could do better and there is a proposal for
>>that (444)."""
>Just to give this some more context: I think WSGI (even in Python 2) 
>is faulty and we have the possibility now to fix it.  Nobody in the 
>web community is really eager to use Python 3 currently as far as I 
>can see, so we have some extra time where we can actually introduce 
>some value in to web development on Python 3.  An improved WSGI 
>specification could be a key to that.
>
>If PEP 3333 is what we end up with, that is fine with me as well.

I don't think it's an either-or case.  PEP 3333 just means that 
there's a clear path to port WSGI 1 apps.  If somebody wants to 
champion a WSGI 1.1, a 2.0, and whatever else, that's great!

I'm really trying to step *down* from involvement in this; the only 
reason I stepped up to do this now is because of the pending 3.2 
release and the open question(s) over stdlib APIs that have to 
stabilize in this release.