[Web-SIG] WSGI for HTTP/2.0 ?

[Randy Syring]

On 09/20/2014 02:31 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> The problem with trying to overhaul WSGI is that if it is done in an open forum like the Web-SIG it will die of a thousand cuts, as past efforts to update it in even minor ways have suffered.
>
> The only way that WSGI itself will ever see an overhaul is through the strong willed determination of a few people off list, out of sight, to allow it it to be fully fleshed out, with input coming from direct consultation with and review by other related parties who have a vested interested or significant experience in the area.
>
> I may be up for such an off list effort, but be warned I may want to run roughshod over it and exert quite a lot of influence over the process and outcome.

I'm no one important in the Python world, but, FWIW, I agree with you.  
I've followed your work over the years and believe you have a penchant 
for details and accuracy as evidenced by your comments here on the list 
and your work on modwsgi and wrapt.  I'd be very interested in seeing 
what you could come up with.

IMO, if you are up for it, you should feel free to grab a few people 
that you would like to work with and hammer out a PEP (or it's 
precursor).  Then, let the PEP process work as it's intended to.  
Hopefully, this method results in a trend towards more concrete and 
specific arguments and less likely to "die of a thousand cuts."

I'm going to refer this group as the "draft team."

On 20 September 2014 19:14, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would prefer to have this work being done transparently. If we do it
> rationally  it could work imo.

I don't think anyone is arguing against transparency.  But momentum 
matters and, in the history of changes to the WSGI spec, momentum has 
died pretty easily even when there were clearly changes that needed to 
be made.  If Graham, or anyone else for that matter, has the gumption to 
go at this thing hard and get something written down, I think that that 
should be encouraged.

Even if the initial phases of that processes are behind closed doors, 
transparency will come eventually and there will be opportunity for 
comment.

But if you make the process too transparent too early, the energy used 
to keep up with everyone and all the different needs can take away from 
doing the actual work of defining the spec.

> got an idea. What about having a page collecting feedback from anyone 
> in the python community about this topic. So we can have true data 
> from different perspectives: developer, library/framework author, 
> server author. I'm OK to collect the data from it and make a summary 
> of it once it's done.

This seems reasonable.  That way, interested parties could get their 
comments "on record" without the draft team needing to feel like that 
have to satisfy or even have a discussion about every comment.
>
> The form it could take should be discussed first but imo that a good 
> way to engage the community. What do you think?

I'd suggest a "wsgi comments" github repo.

Workflow:

  * Submit a document to the repo with your comments on the future
    version of WSGI
      o use any readable format you want (Markdown, RST, plain text, etc.).
      o include name, contact information, background.  Make sure to
        give enough info about your background so the draft team has
        some context for the proposals and comments you are making.
  * Any desired discussion by interested parties can be had on the pull
    request page (or here I guess, but that might be noisy)
  * The author can update pull request if desired based on discussion
  * pull requests are automatically accepted after some time period (1
    week?) of no further comments
      o the delay in acceptance is to give time for discussion and
        updates to the PR
      o a PR merge does not indicate that the idea will be accepted into
        the WSGI PEP, it's just being merged into the comments repo
  * an individual should only update their own document, no PRs against
    someone else's document.
      o comments/discussions should go on the PR

Just my $0.02.


*Randy Syring*
Husband | Father | Redeemed Sinner

/"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world
and forfeit his soul?" (Mark 8:36 ESV)/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/attachments/20140920/307f55c0/attachment-0001.html>