Python 3 version of webob?

[Jim Fulton]

What's the status of webob on Python 3? Is there a way to use webob
with Python 3? Plans?

The same questions applies to webtest.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton

[Ian Bicking]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote:

What's the status of webob on Python 3?  Is there a way to use webob
with Python 3?  Plans?

The same questions applies to webtest.

I was hoping for WSGI 2, which clarifies a bunch of Python 3 issues, to happen before porting WebOb etc. 

--
Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org  |  http://topplabs.org/civichacker

[Graham Dumpleton]

On Jul 24, 7:04 am, Ian Bicking <ianbick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote:
>
> > What's the status of webob on Python 3?  Is there a way to use webob
> > with Python 3?  Plans?
>
> > The same questions applies to webtest.
>
> I was hoping for WSGI 2, which clarifies a bunch of Python 3 issues, to
> happen before porting WebOb etc.

Some people want more significant changes to WSGI 2.0 beyond just
clarifications. Such as getting rid of start_response(). Is that also
what you are waiting for?

FWIW, WSGI 2.0 looks like a dead duck to me and even an updated WSGI
1.0 for Python 3.0 doesn't look like it is going anywhere now.

Part of the problem with going forward is the minority who somehow
want WSGI to support asynchronous systems. To my mind trying to do
that would be a mistake and the previous discussions about it have
only served to slow things down even more.

The other problem is that there is no defined process for updating
WSGI specification. The idea that consensus will work has failed.

Graham

[Ian Bicking]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Graham
Dumpleton<graham.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 7:04 am, Ian Bicking <ianbick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What's the status of webob on Python 3?  Is there a way to use webob
>> > with Python 3?  Plans?
>>
>> > The same questions applies to webtest.
>>
>> I was hoping for WSGI 2, which clarifies a bunch of Python 3 issues, to
>> happen before porting WebOb etc.
>
> Some people want more significant changes to WSGI 2.0 beyond just
> clarifications. Such as getting rid of start_response(). Is that also
> what you are waiting for?

No, only the unicode clarifications. start_response isn't a bit deal
one way or the other.

> FWIW, WSGI 2.0 looks like a dead duck to me and even an updated WSGI
> 1.0 for Python 3.0 doesn't look like it is going anywhere now.

Well, there's no blockers, there's just no momentum.

> Part of the problem with going forward is the minority who somehow
> want WSGI to support asynchronous systems. To my mind trying to do
> that would be a mistake and the previous discussions about it have
> only served to slow things down even more.

I agree.

> The other problem is that there is no defined process for updating
> WSGI specification. The idea that consensus will work has failed.

I'm not convinced of that -- I think we were simply distracted, not derailed.