> If you're talking about distutils2 on Python 3, then of course
> anything goes: backward compatibility isn't an issue. For 2.x, not
> writing the files would indeed produce backward compatibility problems.
I was talking about distutils in 3.2 (or in the release where
wsgiref.egg-info goes awa
At 10:18 PM 9/16/2010 +0200, Ãric Araujo wrote:
Le 15/09/2010 21:45, Tarek Ziadé a écrit : > Could we remove in
any case the wsgiref.egg-info file ? Since we've > been working on a
new format for that (PEP 376), that should be > starting to get used
in the coming years, it'll be a bit of a >
Le 15/09/2010 21:45, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
> Could we remove in any case the wsgiref.egg-info file ? Since we've
> been working on a new format for that (PEP 376), that should be
> starting to get used in the coming years, it'll be a bit of a
> non-sense to have that metadata file in the sdtlib shi
At 11:50 PM 9/15/2010 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 21:18, P.J. Eby wrote:
> If I were to offer a suggestion to a PEP author or dictator wanting to get
> something out ASAP, it would probably be to create a compromise between the
> "flat" model (my personal favorite) and
At 11:12 PM 9/15/2010 +0200, Ãric Araujo wrote:
Unless I remember wrong, the intent was not to break code that used
pkg_resources.require('wsgiref')
More precisely, at the time it was done, setuptools was slated for
inclusion in Python 2.5, and the idea was that when modules moved
from PyPI
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 21:18, P.J. Eby wrote:
> If I were to offer a suggestion to a PEP author or dictator wanting to get
> something out ASAP, it would probably be to create a compromise between the
> "flat" model (my personal favorite) and the mod_wsgi model, as an addendum
> to PEP 333. Spec
> * add a decorator to wsgiref that supports using native strings as
> output instead of bytes, for ease-of-porting (combine mod_wsgi's
> ease-of-porting w/"flat"'s simple verifiability)
Ah, thanks, I’ve been reading web-sig and was totally at a loss to
understand what a “native string” was. No
Le 15/09/2010 21:45, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
> Could we remove in any case the wsgiref.egg-info file ? Since we've
> been working on a new format for that (PEP 376), that should be
> starting to get used in the coming years, it'll be a bit of a
> non-sense to have that metadata file in the sdtlib shi
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:45, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> At 11:11 AM 9/15/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
>>> Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
>>> release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved,
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 11:11 AM 9/15/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
>> release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
>> can convince ourselves that it's okay to de
On Sep 15, 2010, at 09:21 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>Am 15.09.2010 20:32, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
>> I would much prefer holding up the release to fix wsgiref rather
>> than remove it. I think it's an important module worthy of being in
>> the stdlib.
>
>Really? I'd like to hear from some of its use
For reference, I have developed a spec and an (untested) reference
implementation of a WSGI successor I've given the name "Web3". Ian is
not hot on this spec (he prefers native strings as environ keys). I'm
definitely not going to write a WebOb analogue, so I'd more or less
given up trying to pro
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:59 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
> For reference, I have developed a spec and an (untested) reference
> implementation of a WSGI successor I've given the name "Web3". Ian is
> not hot on this spec (he prefers native strings as environ keys).
That should read "as environ v
Am 15.09.2010 20:32, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
>>release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
>>can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgi
At 11:11 AM 9/15/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgiref from the
stdlib (which sounds unlikely but may no
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> On 9/15/2010 2:47 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
+0.5
The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSG
On 9/15/2010 2:47 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>>
>>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been bro
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>> +0.5
>>
>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
>> others, but given a lack of a
On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
> +0.5
>
> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
> others, but given a lack of a clear path forward (bugs, peps, etc), I
> don't think it's fair t
On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
>release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
>can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgiref from the
>stdlib (which sounds unlikely but ma
Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgiref from the
stdlib (which sounds unlikely but may not be any more incompatible
than making it work properly
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:36, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> Fundamentally; I would gladly hold up 3.2 (just my opinion) for the
>> needed fixes to the standard lib [...]
>
> I think I should share a little anecdote at this point:
>
> Earlier
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> Fundamentally; I would gladly hold up 3.2 (just my opinion) for the
> needed fixes to the standard lib [...]
I think I should share a little anecdote at this point:
Earlier in the year I worked for a while on Django/Py3. It's actually
not t
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:35, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> ...snip...
The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
web-oriented modules. These issues have be
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:35, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> ...snip...
>>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
>>> others, but given a lack of a
On 15/09/2010 17:35, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
...snip...
The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
others, but given a lack of a clear path forward (bug
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
...snip...
>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
>> others, but given a lack of a clear path forward (bugs, peps, etc), I
>> don't think it's
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:50, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:21:11 -0400
>> Steve Holden wrote:
>>>
>>> The question of when to declare 3.x the "official" release is
>>> interesting. I am inclined to say "when there's at l
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:21:11 -0400
> Steve Holden wrote:
>>
>> The question of when to declare 3.x the "official" release is
>> interesting. I am inclined to say "when there's at least one other
>> implementation at 3.2" - even if CPython
29 matches
Mail list logo
