73 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
73 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
- See proposed specifications: [[EWSGI specification| EWSGI-specification]]
|
|
- See [[Open questions| EWSGI-open-questions]]
|
|
- And below the various proposals and associated decision
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
# Waiting for decision
|
|
|
|
## Include EWF_HEADER into EWSGI as WGI_HEADERS
|
|
- Code: **P-2011-09-26-include-wgi-headers**
|
|
- Status: proposed on 2011-09-26 **WAITING FOR APPROVAL**
|
|
|
|
> Include WGI_HEADERS to help the user to build HTTP Header.
|
|
> So that he doesn't have to know the HTTP specification for usual needs
|
|
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
# Adopted entries
|
|
|
|
## Rename `parameter` into `item`
|
|
- Code: **P-2011-09-07-renaming_REQUEST_item**
|
|
- Status: proposed on 2011-09-07 **ADOPTED-by-default**
|
|
|
|
> rename `{REQUEST}.parameter (n: READABLE_STRING_GENERAL): detachable WGI_VALUE`
|
|
> into `{REQUEST}.item (n: READABLE_STRING_GENERAL): detachable WGI_VALUE`
|
|
> and similar for `parameters` -> `items`
|
|
|
|
## Return type of `parameter' (and similar query_, form_data_ ...) should be deferred WGI_VALUE
|
|
- Code: **P-2011-09-05-WGI_VALUE**
|
|
- Status: proposed on 2011-09-05 **ADOPTED-by-default**
|
|
|
|
> Instead of returning just `READABLE_STRING_32` , it would be better to use **WGI_VALUE** .
|
|
> Mainly to address the multiple value for the same param name, but also for uploaded files.
|
|
> This allows to have various types such as WGI_STRING_VALUE, WGI_LIST_VALUE, WGI_TABLE_VALUE, WGI_FILE_VALUE .
|
|
>
|
|
> Thus we would have: <code>parameter (a_name: READABLE_STRING_GENERAL): detachable WGI_VALUE </code>
|
|
|
|
## Include the parameter's name in WGI_VALUE interface
|
|
- Code: **P-2011-09-05-WGI_VALUE_interface**
|
|
- Dependence: adoption of P-2011-09-05-WGI_VALUE , may impact on P-2011-09-05-parameters_ITERABLE
|
|
- Status: proposed on 2011-09-05 **ADOPTED-by-default**
|
|
|
|
> include the corresponding parameter's name in WGI_VALUE interface.
|
|
> Such as `{WGI_VALUE}.name: READABLE_STRING_GENERAL` (or READABLE_STRING_32).
|
|
>
|
|
> This would also allow to replace
|
|
> signature `parameters: ITERABLE [TUPLE [name: READABLE_STRING_GENERAL; value: WGI__VALUE]]'
|
|
> by a nicer signature `parameters: ITERABLE [WGI__VALUE]`
|
|
|
|
## Signature of parameters (and similar) using ITERABLE [...]
|
|
- Code: **P-2011-09-05-parameters_ITERABLE**
|
|
- Status: proposed on 2011-09-05 **ADOPTED-by-default**
|
|
|
|
> Description: Instead of forcing the implementation to use HASH_TABLE, DS_HASH_TABLE, DS_HASH_SET, ... or similar
|
|
> we should use `ITERABLE`
|
|
>
|
|
> `parameters: ITERABLE [TUPLE [name: READABLE_STRING_GENERAL; value: WGI_VALUE]]`
|
|
>
|
|
> Or, if `P-2011-09-05-WGI_VALUE_interface` is adopted (WGI_VALUE.name holds the related parameter's name)
|
|
>
|
|
> `parameters: ITERABLE [WGI_VALUE]`
|
|
|
|
## Change prefix from EWSGI_ to WGI_
|
|
- Code: **P-2011-08-29-WGI_prefix**
|
|
- Status: **adopted**
|
|
- Decision: **WGI_**
|
|
|
|
> shorter and pronouncable prefix for EWSGI class names
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
# Rejected entries
|
|
|
|
...
|