On 5 January 2011 07:04, James Y Knight <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Back to the subject of this thread: A simple CGI server is useful because it's simple enough that you can include it in the spec, to demonstrate how to handle various bits of WSGI. And anyone writing a webserver understands CGI, and can understand that. A complete HTTP implementation would not be simple enough to write into the spec.
And this is the crux of the issue. It doesn't matter whether people
use CGI or not, CGI provides a good basis for showing the mechanics of
how a WSGI server/adapter should process stuff. If not that, what are
you going to do, try and use pseudo code, include a much larger socket
based web server solution?