[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest
Armin Ronacher
armin.ronacher at active-4.com
Tue Jan 5 07:14:28 EST 2016
Hi,
On 05/01/2016 13:09, Luke Plant wrote:
> Just to add my 2c - as another Django developer, I agree completely with
> Aymeric here. My own experience was that the HTTP handling done by WSGI
> (especially URL handing, HTTP header mangling, os.environ as a
> destination - all due to CGI compatibility - and semi-broken unicode
> handling) only made things harder for us. We would much rather have
> dealt with raw streams of bytes and done all HTTP parsing ourselves.
>
> Like Graham said, for HTTP/2 let's ignore the history of WSGI and start
> from scratch with a API that actually serves us well.
Alright. I bite: if it would not be done that way you had different
problems. In particular a problem that comes up very often is that
people want the PATH_INFO and SCRIPT_NAME to not be encoded. That
however completely breaks any form of routing you would want to do the
moment they contain unicode characters.
I keep having the argument about PATH_INFO and the header semantics
constantly with people and i'm absolutely convinced (from the theory
behind it as well as playing around with ideas for PEP 444 a few years
ago) that it only gets worse the moment you leave the WSGI territory too
far.
Likewise I wonder how many people that ask for more low level access
concerned themselves with chunked requests/responses, transport
encodings and all the complexity that servers do for you. Yes, quite a
bit of this is broken in WSGI but would have been trivial to fix without
throwing the whole specification into the toilette :)
Regards,
Armin
More information about the Web-SIG
mailing list