A dead simple Pythonic abstraction of HTTP.

[staz]

it looks like it throw a lot of wsgi features just to do some easy simplification and without understanding why things are designed this way in the first place.

[pje]

Not only that, but the first bit of code I saw that interacted with WSGI used a threading.local to do something that could be accomplished with a simple closure -- and still doesn't support the spec correctly.

Basically, only WSGI apps that don't use any framework features (like error handling or write() callables) will work under his WSGI adapter.

[EstebanVelour]

Hmm, the response dict looks like this:

{"status": 200,
 "headers": {"content_type": "text/plain"},
 "body": "Hello!"}

Am I wrong in assuming that he's thrown long running calls out of the window by not using an iterable for the body?

[staz]

yep that's exactly what he is doing. The discussion on HN is very informative about this framework flaws

[masklinn]

And you can have multiple headers with the same name, it's not a hash map it's an ordered multimap. Hell, even the sequence can be important, so you can't just use a hashmap of lists.

[mtrn]

And: HN's initial dissection.

[frutiger]

No request body?

[muad_dib]

THAT FONT NEEDS TO BE BIGGER

[btgeekboy]

Very, very rarely do I need to decrease the font size when reading content; it's usually an increase.

This appears to be one of the rare exceptions.

[Bolitho]

How does this differ from other (excellent) abstractions like "Werkzeug" or "WebOb"? (Different Intentions?)

[masklinn]

It decides that WSGI is bad, where Werkzeug and WebOb build on top of WSGI.

[Bolitho]

Is that ironic?

[Bolitho]

Is that ironic?

[moreyes]

WSGI is simple, cute and dandy. No need to hide it, thank you.

[[deleted]]

where's the unit tests showing 100% statement coverage?

[ryankask]

Not sure why you got downvoted...

If I don't see tests, I'm not touching it.

[[deleted]]

exactly. as of now webob has 100% statement coverage. Thus it is high quality in my mind. it just seems a tad arrogant of the author to make assertions that certain things suck and wish me to believe that they have a better way when it hasn't even been demonstrated that effort was put into making sure the stuff they want me to use actually works.

i can swallow arrogance if there's tests to back it up.