Ian Bicking: the old part of his blog

Re: A WSGI reference library

You're spot on about the mailing-list, at least in my case. Too busy. Not to mention the general expectation in OSS discussions: if you open your mouth, expect to get assigned more work. :)

Although I'd like to see some standardized middleware, I'm more interested at this stage of WSGI to get the major servers on board (Apache 2 being first on my list). But you didn't hear that from me; I have enough to do on those "other projects".

Comment on A WSGI reference library
by Robert Brewer

Comments:

Better applications means more motivation for better servers. Or vice versa -- either way, working on one doesn't keep anyone from working on the other; quite the contrary! And because WSGI is a stable target for both sides, they can work happily and safely in parallel.
# Ian Bicking

...just saying that my time is a limited good. So if _I_ work on one, _I_ can't work on the other and still expect to continue getting paid for my day job. ;)

Hence the silence.

# Robert Brewer

http://www.amorhq.net/blogs/index.php/fumanchu/2005/02/05/paraware_vs_middleware
# Robert Brewer

FastCGI is orthogonal to WSGI. WSGI is a way Python applications and servers can communicate in the same process. The "server" may just be something accepting FastCGI connections, or might be a real HTTP server, or whatever. So WSGI is an internal API, not a protocol.
# Ian Bicking