[pyninja]

Building web apps! Basically, it's meant to be a replacement for WSGI. In my view, the problems with WSGI are that it has an unpythonic API (see: start_response and environ), and that it doesn't come with standard middleware that all frameworks use, so they all end up reinventing the wheel. Pump does a better job of abstracting out the details of HTTP, and also comes with a lot of useful middleware. This makes it really simple to write a web framework: just implement the routing and glue together a bunch of middlewares. For an example, see Picasso (https://github.com/adeel/picasso), a simple but functional framework I built on top of Pump.

[irahul]

> In my view, the problems with WSGI are that it has an unpythonic API (see: start_response and environ),

Why do you find `start_response` unpythonic?

[pyninja]

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).

[irahul]

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?

[clarkevans]

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...

[pyninja]

Here is an example of a thread where it's discussed: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2009-November/threa...