On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen <akaar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, December 18, 2015, Andrew Godwin <and...@aeracode.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Mark Lavin <markdla...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > You seem to be assuming I'm here to foist a brand new middle layer on >>> everyone; I'm not. I'm here to make one that fits neatly into Django, that >>> I think most people will want to turn on, and that provides a lot of value >>> in exchange for a slight round-trip performance hit - my goal is sub-5ms, >>> and preferably sub-3. If it starts being 10/20/30 milliseconds of cost, >>> then we'll have to change our approach until it's acceptable. >>> >>> Yes that's how I read this plan and that's why I think it needs some >>> clarity. I didn't mean for this to turn into a long discussion about >>> performance. This was meant to be a discussion about the transition plan. >>> To go back to my original message, I see no gain for existing WSGI >>> applications to have this on by default, even using the in-memory >>> channel, when they upgrade to 1.10 (or whenever this lands). The >>> current plan reads as though it will. >>> >> >> I agree - that was my original intention and how the current version of >> channels works, but it's no longer my plan, and I should update the >> integration plan to be more specific and discuss things like introducing >> different HttpRequest subclasses other than WSGIRequest. >> >> > My concern (and critisism) was about running everything through channels. > > Back to the original question about release schedule. Is the 1.8 and 1.9 > external package going to require changes to Django core? If so, are the > changes going to be substantial? > It won't require changes - monkeypatching can solve it all - though of course there are some small ones that could be made that would improve things. Not sure I want to make dot releases just to support channels, though. > > For 1.10, my vote goes to time based releases, that is, we don't decide at > this point what must be in 1.10. > Yes, I'll update the draft to indicate that 1.10 is the goal, not the definite plan. My hope is that it'll be definitely far enough along by feature freeze to include; the fact that the interface server will be separate helps there too. Andrew > > - Anssi > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1G-bC56UR-SKQfWujSxb%3DLe4WXedYj3bGRasfFkDWLn0g%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1G-bC56UR-SKQfWujSxb%3DLe4WXedYj3bGRasfFkDWLn0g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1upNGURVg%3D-NLLnQyh7FxmJVeRS2iMPs%3DebBhCZVCqR9nA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
