From amk at vail.asti-usa.com Thu Sep 11 15:21:45 2003 From: amk at vail.asti-usa.com (A.M. Kuchling) Date: Thu Sep 11 14:22:00 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] SIG expiration time again Message-ID: A whole bunch of SIGS have passed their expiry dates: January: c++-sig February: getopt-sig, parser-sig June: catalog-sig, db-sig, distutils-sig, doc-sig, edu-sig, i18n-sig, image-sig, xml-sig September: persistence-sig The June expiries are all SIGs that are still going strong, with the possible exception of the i18n-sig (mostly getting spam, lately). The others should all be renewed; June 2004 seems a reasonable date. The c++-sig is lively; should it be renewed until June 2004, just to synchronize it? The parser-sig is mine; it's clearly dead, so I'll retire it. The getopt-sig hasn't seen a post since Dec. 2002, and optparse went into Python 2.3, so it should probably be retired. Greg W., what say you? The persistence-sig hasn't seen anything substantial since Nov. 2002. Jeremy, is it still alive, and are you still willing to be SIG coordinator? --amk From barry at python.org Thu Sep 11 19:53:52 2003 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Thu Sep 11 14:53:54 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] SIG expiration time again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1063306310.14771.23.camel@anthem> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 14:21, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > The > c++-sig is lively; should it be renewed until June 2004, just to > synchronize it? +1 -Barry From guido at python.org Thu Sep 11 13:55:12 2003 From: guido at python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Thu Sep 11 15:56:01 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] SIG expiration time again In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:21:45 EDT." References: Message-ID: <200309111955.h8BJtCe18768@12-236-84-31.client.attbi.com> > A whole bunch of SIGS have passed their expiry dates: > > January: c++-sig > February: getopt-sig, parser-sig > June: catalog-sig, db-sig, distutils-sig, doc-sig, edu-sig, > i18n-sig, image-sig, xml-sig > September: persistence-sig > > The June expiries are all SIGs that are still going strong, with the > possible exception of the i18n-sig (mostly getting spam, lately). The > others should all be renewed; June 2004 seems a reasonable date. The > c++-sig is lively; should it be renewed until June 2004, just to > synchronize it? All +1. I would keep the i18n-sig around too, the subject isn't dead by far. > The parser-sig is mine; it's clearly dead, so I'll retire it. OK. > The getopt-sig hasn't seen a post since Dec. 2002, and optparse went > into Python 2.3, so it should probably be retired. Greg W., what say you? OK with me. > The persistence-sig hasn't seen anything substantial since Nov. 2002. > Jeremy, is it still alive, and are you still willing to be SIG > coordinator? I'm +1 on killing it, but I'm willing to let Jeremy grovel a bit to keep it alive. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From janssen at parc.com Thu Sep 11 14:53:48 2003 From: janssen at parc.com (Bill Janssen) Date: Thu Sep 11 16:55:25 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Another try at a Python Web SIG? Message-ID: <03Sep11.135350pdt."58611"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> I know this was just discussed a few months ago, but I'm very interested in getting a Web SIG together or reinvigorated or whatever it takes. The current Web support in Python is somewhat embarassingly patchy, given the neatness of the rest of the system. My specific thinking is about three things: 1) Add SSL server-side support to the "socket" module. This will include some way of managing certificates. Probably modelled strongly after the way we did it in ILU, if I do it :-). 2) Update the "httplib" module to include all of the client-side functionality available in the Linux "curl" program (a reasonable checklist, I think, but am open to better suggestions). 3) Replace/extend the BaseHTTPServer and SimpleHTTPServer modules with an extended webserver module which provides at least the functionality in Medusa. I'd be happy to work in #1 (starting with a PEP, I think) and provide help with #2 and #3, if others would like to pitch in. I don't want to collide with others who are working on this already, and think a SIG would be a good way to coordinate efforts. Bill From barry at python.org Thu Sep 11 23:14:53 2003 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Thu Sep 11 18:14:55 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Another try at a Python Web SIG? In-Reply-To: <03Sep11.135350pdt."58611"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> References: <03Sep11.135350pdt."58611"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> Message-ID: <1063318488.19907.10.camel@anthem> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 16:53, Bill Janssen wrote: > I know this was just discussed a few months ago, but I'm very > interested in getting a Web SIG together or reinvigorated or whatever > it takes. I sense an enthusiastic sig coordinator, and creating sigs is fairly lightweight now. +0 from me. -Barry From guido at python.org Thu Sep 11 17:14:02 2003 From: guido at python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Thu Sep 11 19:14:55 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Another try at a Python Web SIG? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:53:48 PDT." <03Sep11.135350pdt."58611"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> References: <03Sep11.135350pdt."58611"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> Message-ID: <200309112314.h8BNE2F18949@12-236-84-31.client.attbi.com> > I know this was just discussed a few months ago, but I'm very > interested in getting a Web SIG together or reinvigorated or whatever > it takes. The current Web support in Python is somewhat embarassingly > patchy, given the neatness of the rest of the system. Right. I just had to pick an app server technology for a small project here, and found it surprisingly hard to figure out what's out there. > My specific thinking is about three things: > > 1) Add SSL server-side support to the "socket" module. This will > include some way of managing certificates. Probably modelled > strongly after the way we did it in ILU, if I do it :-). Cool -- this is another thing that I could use in my new job. I think there's a 3rd party package that does this, though. (Can't remember the name right now.) But we ought to have more complete OpenSSL wrapeprs in the standard library. > 2) Update the "httplib" module to include all of the client-side > functionality available in the Linux "curl" program (a reasonable > checklist, I think, but am open to better suggestions). I don't know curl and have no big needs in this area, but httplib certainly shows its age, despite having been rewritten once already. > 3) Replace/extend the BaseHTTPServer and SimpleHTTPServer modules with > an extended webserver module which provides at least the > functionality in Medusa. Good idea. I think there may be some useful stuff in Zope that we might be able to incorporate. > I'd be happy to work in #1 (starting with a PEP, I think) and provide > help with #2 and #3, if others would like to pitch in. I don't want > to collide with others who are working on this already, and think a > SIG would be a good way to coordinate efforts. If you want to coordinate the SIG, I'll join as an observer. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From ianb at colorstudy.com Thu Sep 11 19:19:25 2003 From: ianb at colorstudy.com (Ian Bicking) Date: Thu Sep 11 19:19:31 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Another try at a Python Web SIG? In-Reply-To: <03Sep11.135350pdt."58611"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> Message-ID: <62483288-E4AE-11D7-8543-000393C2D67E@colorstudy.com> On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 03:53 PM, Bill Janssen wrote: > I know this was just discussed a few months ago, but I'm very > interested in getting a Web SIG together or reinvigorated or whatever > it takes. The current Web support in Python is somewhat embarassingly > patchy, given the neatness of the rest of the system. There is a list at pyweb@amk.ca -- though woefully quiet the last couple weeks, it does have a significant subscriber list. It was specifically created to consider server-side Python. I would encourage you to join that list, and hopefully start up some new activity. > My specific thinking is about three things: > > 1) Add SSL server-side support to the "socket" module. This will > include some way of managing certificates. Probably modelled > strongly after the way we did it in ILU, if I do it :-). > > 2) Update the "httplib" module to include all of the client-side > functionality available in the Linux "curl" program (a reasonable > checklist, I think, but am open to better suggestions). Client-side web programming seems like a very different situation than server-side, though of course there's overlap. But maybe less overlap than it would initially seem. > 3) Replace/extend the BaseHTTPServer and SimpleHTTPServer modules with > an extended webserver module which provides at least the > functionality in Medusa. The HTTPServer modules distributed with Python stdlib have never been very serious. Any development on server-side libraries should really look closely at the wider set of software available. And then there's several levels -- lower-level stuff like Medusa and Twisted, and higher-level stuff (far too many to list). There's a lot of people interested in this, I think -- but it's challenging because it's somewhat political, and cooperation probably isn't likely in some areas (specifically the aesthetics of implementing a web application). But I'd really like to see more cooperation and commonality on lower-level Python web programming, where there's a lot fewer people with strong opinions. Ian From sdrees at sdrees.de Fri Sep 12 02:29:37 2003 From: sdrees at sdrees.de (Stefan Drees) Date: Thu Sep 11 19:29:40 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Another try at a Python Web SIG? In-Reply-To: <62483288-E4AE-11D7-8543-000393C2D67E@colorstudy.com> References: <03Sep11.135350pdt."58611"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> <62483288-E4AE-11D7-8543-000393C2D67E@colorstudy.com> Message-ID: <20030911232937.GA16688@knoten.biz> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 06:19:25PM -0500 - a wonderful day - Ian Bicking wrote: > On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 03:53 PM, Bill Janssen wrote: > >I know this was just discussed a few months ago, but I'm very > >interested in getting a Web SIG together or reinvigorated or whatever > >it takes. The current Web support in Python is somewhat embarassingly > >patchy, given the neatness of the rest of the system. > ... > >My specific thinking is about three things: > > > >1) Add SSL server-side support to the "socket" module. This will > > include some way of managing certificates. Probably modelled > > strongly after the way we did it in ILU, if I do it :-). that sounds interesting to me too. > ... > > There's a lot of people interested in this, I think -- but it's > challenging because it's somewhat political, and cooperation probably > isn't likely in some areas (specifically the aesthetics of implementing > a web application). But I'd really like to see more cooperation and > commonality on lower-level Python web programming, where there's a lot > fewer people with strong opinions. +1 Yes, this would be a shift in direction I'd love to support. All the best, Stefan Drees. -- Stefan Drees, sdrees@ieee.org, www.sdrees.org Fingerprint = 516C C4EF 712A B26F 15C9 C7B7 5651 6964 D508 1B56 From barry at python.org Fri Sep 12 00:45:17 2003 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Thu Sep 11 19:45:18 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Another try at a Python Web SIG? In-Reply-To: <62483288-E4AE-11D7-8543-000393C2D67E@colorstudy.com> References: <62483288-E4AE-11D7-8543-000393C2D67E@colorstudy.com> Message-ID: <1063323911.19907.24.camel@anthem> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 19:19, Ian Bicking wrote: > There's a lot of people interested in this, I think -- but it's > challenging because it's somewhat political, and cooperation probably > isn't likely in some areas (specifically the aesthetics of implementing > a web application). But I'd really like to see more cooperation and > commonality on lower-level Python web programming, where there's a lot > fewer people with strong opinions. It seems to me that server side stuff tends toward frameworks, and you have to buy into the whole framework in order to get anything done. OTOH, there are quite a few server side frameworks out there, so the opportunity may be right for factoring out commonality, encouraging standards, etc. -Barry From janssen at parc.com Thu Sep 11 18:25:17 2003 From: janssen at parc.com (Bill Janssen) Date: Thu Sep 11 20:25:54 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Another try at a Python Web SIG? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:14:48 PDT." <1063318488.19907.10.camel@anthem> Message-ID: <03Sep11.172522pdt."58611"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> Well, at least it's + :-). Bill > On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 16:53, Bill Janssen wrote: > > I know this was just discussed a few months ago, but I'm very > > interested in getting a Web SIG together or reinvigorated or whatever > > it takes. > > I sense an enthusiastic sig coordinator, and creating sigs is fairly > lightweight now. +0 from me. > > -Barry > > From lac at strakt.com Fri Sep 12 06:05:58 2003 From: lac at strakt.com (Laura Creighton) Date: Thu Sep 11 23:06:11 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Another try at a Python Web SIG? In-Reply-To: Message from Guido van Rossum of "Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:14:02 PDT." <200309112314.h8BNE2F18949@12-236-84-31.client.attbi.com> References: <03Sep11.135350pdt."58611"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> <200309112314.h8BNE2F18949@12-236-84-31.client.attbi.com> Message-ID: <200309120305.h8C35wq4031980@ratthing-b246.strakt.com> In a message of Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:14:02 PDT, Guido van Rossum writes: >> I know this was just discussed a few months ago, but I'm very >> interested in getting a Web SIG together or reinvigorated or whatever >> it takes. The current Web support in Python is somewhat embarassingly >> patchy, given the neatness of the rest of the system. > >Right. I just had to pick an app server technology for a small >project here, and found it surprisingly hard to figure out what's out >there. > >> My specific thinking is about three things: >> >> 1) Add SSL server-side support to the "socket" module. This will >> include some way of managing certificates. Probably modelled >> strongly after the way we did it in ILU, if I do it :-). > >Cool -- this is another thing that I could use in my new job. I think >there's a 3rd party package that does this, though. (Can't remember >the name right now.) But we ought to have more complete OpenSSL >wrapeprs in the standard library. We have one. http://pyopenssl.sourceforge.net/ Manages crtificates great. Martin Sj?gren wrote it. School has started, so he is back being a csc grad student, but you can still mail him here. I've cc'd him on this. Laura > >> 2) Update the "httplib" module to include all of the client-side >> functionality available in the Linux "curl" program (a reasonable >> checklist, I think, but am open to better suggestions). > >I don't know curl and have no big needs in this area, but httplib >certainly shows its age, despite having been rewritten once already. > >> 3) Replace/extend the BaseHTTPServer and SimpleHTTPServer modules with >> an extended webserver module which provides at least the >> functionality in Medusa. > >Good idea. I think there may be some useful stuff in Zope that we >might be able to incorporate. > >> I'd be happy to work in #1 (starting with a PEP, I think) and provide >> help with #2 and #3, if others would like to pitch in. I don't want >> to collide with others who are working on this already, and think a >> SIG would be a good way to coordinate efforts. > >If you want to coordinate the SIG, I'll join as an observer. > >--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > >_______________________________________________ >Meta-sig maillist - Meta-sig@python.org >http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/meta-sig From jeremy at alum.mit.edu Fri Sep 12 10:55:03 2003 From: jeremy at alum.mit.edu (Jeremy Hylton) Date: Fri Sep 12 10:55:17 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] SIG expiration time again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1063378503.2069.273.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 14:21, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > The persistence-sig hasn't seen anything substantial since Nov. 2002. > Jeremy, is it still alive, and are you still willing to be SIG > coordinator? I don't think it's likely that there will be a standard Python persistence mechanism, so there isn't any need for a sig that I can tell. I'll send a note to see if any sig members disagree. sorry-no-groveling-today-guido-ly y'rs, Jeremy From cs1spw at bath.ac.uk Wed Sep 17 20:32:36 2003 From: cs1spw at bath.ac.uk (Simon Willison) Date: Wed Sep 17 20:31:55 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Web-SIG - improving the cgi module Message-ID: <3F68FD24.4000005@bath.ac.uk> Just registering my interest: I would be very interested in participating in a Web-SIG, in particular discussing potential improvements to the cgi module (or a new cgi2 module if suggested changes would break backwards compatibility to a large degree). Regards, Simon Willison http://simon.incutio.com/ From barry at python.org Thu Sep 18 01:00:57 2003 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Thu Sep 18 01:01:05 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Web-SIG - improving the cgi module In-Reply-To: <3F68FD24.4000005@bath.ac.uk> References: <3F68FD24.4000005@bath.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1063861256.9847.12.camel@anthem> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 20:32, Simon Willison wrote: > Just registering my interest: I would be very interested in > participating in a Web-SIG, in particular discussing potential > improvements to the cgi module (or a new cgi2 module if suggested > changes would break backwards compatibility to a large degree). I'll probably monitor the sig, but only as time allows. I'd be in favor of a top level 'web' package that perhaps contained a new and improved cgi module (i.e. web.cgi). -Barry From amk at amk.ca Fri Sep 26 09:26:44 2003 From: amk at amk.ca (amk@amk.ca) Date: Fri Sep 26 09:26:49 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Dangling meta-sig business Message-ID: <20030926132644.GA3933@rogue.amk.ca> 1) Jeremy, any final verdict on the persistence-sig? Retire it or extend it to June 2004? 2) Web-SIG: there seemed general agreement that it was a good idea. Shall we move ahead on it, then? (I've created a Wiki page, http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/moinmoin/WebSIGTasks, and listed the items brought up in this thread. Feel free to update/modify.) --amk From jeremy at alum.mit.edu Sun Sep 28 23:01:32 2003 From: jeremy at alum.mit.edu (Jeremy Hylton) Date: Sun Sep 28 23:02:29 2003 Subject: [meta-sig] Dangling meta-sig business In-Reply-To: <20030926132644.GA3933@rogue.amk.ca> References: <20030926132644.GA3933@rogue.amk.ca> Message-ID: <1064804492.19498.112.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 09:26, amk@amk.ca wrote: > 1) Jeremy, any final verdict on the persistence-sig? Retire it or > extend it to June 2004? Retire it. It's hopped the twig. > 2) Web-SIG: there seemed general agreement that it was a good idea. > Shall we move ahead on it, then? > > (I've created a Wiki page, > http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/moinmoin/WebSIGTasks, and listed the items > brought up in this thread. Feel free to update/modify.) Yes. I think we're waiting for Bill to provide an initial charter. Jeremy