Re:Show HN: Pump, a dead simple Pythonic abstraction of HTTP.
by pyninja on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @10:47PM
(#2810513)
The problems with start_response have been discussed at length in Web-SIG. As far as I know, they're planning to remove it from the spec in WSGI 2.0 (whenever that's published).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Show HN: Pump, a dead simple Pythonic abstraction of HTTP.
by irahul on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @10:55PM
(#2810535)
I see http://wsgi.org/wsgi/WSGI_2.0 mentions:
> We could remove start_response and the writer that it implies.
I searched for `wsgi start_response issues` and didn't get anything useful. Care to point out what's the fuss with start_response and why it's unpythonic?
Re:Show HN: Pump, a dead simple Pythonic abstraction of HTTP.
by clarkevans on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @11:26PM
(#2810617)
I think this was the original wart that started
the whole WSGI 2.0 process. As I recall, it was
PJE himself who recommended dropping start_response
and replacing it with a return tuple of
(status, headers, iterable). PJE comments in one
thread that this isn't a reduction in features,
but an improvement in usability:
"Note that in the WSGI 2 calling protocol, you would simply modify your return values, rather than needing to create a function and pass it down the call chain."
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2009-November/00424...
Re:Show HN: Pump, a dead simple Pythonic abstraction of HTTP.
by pyninja on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @11:12PM
(#2810589)
Here is an example of a thread where it's discussed: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2009-November/threa...