#9886: HttpRequest refactoring
Ivan Sagalaev
Ticket [9886] is one of the things that I've been holding for 1.2 time
frame to ask for some discussion since Jacob marked it DDN.
This has started as a feature allowing to .read() directly from a
request object. However this has lead to a rather nice refactoring
removing a lot of code duplication in wsgi and modpython handlers.
This comment[1] in the ticket is a summary of what had changed. Thanks
for looking!
[9886]: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9886
[1]: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9886#comment:1
Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<man...@softwaremaniacs.org> wrote:
> Ticket [9886] is one of the things that I've been holding for 1.2 time
> frame to ask for some discussion since Jacob marked it DDN.
At first glance, you need docs and tests before you get a second glance :)
Jacob
Ivan Sagalaev
> This comment[1] in the ticket is a summary of what had changed. Thanks
> for looking!
Forgot to add... There's no docs & tests changes in the patch yet. I'll
add them after the decision if this looks good at all.
Ivan Sagalaev
I believe my follow up about this that I've posted a bit erlier will
eventually get to Google Groups :-).
I'm going to make them of course. Now I just wanted a general answer
along the lines "okay this looks sane" or "no we don't need it".
Ivan Sagalaev
Hello again!
I've finally got back to the ticket and added docs and tests. For docs
I've extended the reference in request-response.txt which, being a
reference, is short. I could write a longer topic document with more
example if needed. I just don't know if it's worth to make a whole new
topic for a rather advanced and not commonly-used feature.
Also I've proposed this ticket for 1.2 on the wiki[1]. Is this enough to
get it in the decision process or should it be added into a spreadsheet
as well?
[1]: http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.2Features#HTTP
Russell Keith-Magee
<man...@softwaremaniacs.org> wrote:
>
> Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Ivan Sagalaev
>> <man...@softwaremaniacs.org> wrote:
>>> Ticket [9886] is one of the things that I've been holding for 1.2 time
>>> frame to ask for some discussion since Jacob marked it DDN.
>>
>> At first glance, you need docs and tests before you get a second glance :)
>
> Hello again!
>
> I've finally got back to the ticket and added docs and tests. For docs
> I've extended the reference in request-response.txt which, being a
> reference, is short. I could write a longer topic document with more
> example if needed. I just don't know if it's worth to make a whole new
> topic for a rather advanced and not commonly-used feature.
>
> Also I've proposed this ticket for 1.2 on the wiki[1]. Is this enough to
> get it in the decision process or should it be added into a spreadsheet
> as well?
It's probably too late to get added to the spreadsheet - voting is
well underway at this point.
However, as has been noted elsewhere, the voting process is a way for
the core to make decisions on some of the more controversial changes,
and to organize amongst ourselves who will take the lead on features
that we all want. Any complete feature is potentially a candidate for
v1.2 - as long as you can convince a core developer to look into the
ticket.
It's also worth noting that one of the GSoC projects was "HTTP/WSGI
improvements". If you want to get #9886 into trunk, I suspect you
would be well advised to see how your patch integrates with the
changes on the soc2009 branch for that project. Given that one of us
(I'm guessing Malcolm, but that's dependent on his availability) will
be looking at HTTP/WSGI issues during the development cycle for v1.2,
you need to pay attention to the development process, and make
yourself conspicuous when the integration work for that branch starts.
Yours,
Russ Magee %-)
Ivan Sagalaev
> Any complete feature is potentially a candidate for
> v1.2 - as long as you can convince a core developer to look into the
> ticket.
This is what I'm trying to do, yes :-). The ticket is assigned to
Malcolm (and in fact it was created after we talked with him if such a
thing is needed) but he's incredibly busy lately so I decided to discuss
it here to get someone else interested.
> It's also worth noting that one of the GSoC projects was "HTTP/WSGI
> improvements". If you want to get #9886 into trunk, I suspect you
> would be well advised to see how your patch integrates with the
> changes on the soc2009 branch for that project.
I had that in mind from the beginning of that GSoC but didn't look at
the code yet. Since the ticket is older than the GSoC branch there were
chances that it would be committed earlier. But of course I'll keep an
eye on the process.
From a fast superficial look at the code we don't seem to conflict
anyway :-)