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).
> 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?
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."