On May 7, 2008, at 10:59 PM, Christopher Stawarz wrote:
However, the problem remains that, even though an asynchronous
server can implement the write() callable and wsgi.input as required
by the WSGI spec, they effectively can't be used by applications,
since they involve potentially blocki
On May 7, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Ionel Maries Cristian wrote:
The way I see it asynchronous wsgi is just a matter of deciding how
to handle the input asynchronously - a asynchronous input wsgi
extension specification.
Another crucial element is the ability to perform non-blocking I/O on
other
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Christopher Stawarz <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 6, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Ionel Maries Cristian wrote:
>
> > - there is no support for chunked input - that would require having
> > support for readline in the first place,
> >
> Why is readline a requirement fo
On May 7, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
It's my understanding that greenlets are python, not C. Are you
thinking
of tasklets in stackless?
The version for CPython is a C extension module. Have a look at the
comments in
http://svn.red-bean.com/bob/greenlet/trunk/greenlet.c
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 14:00 -0400, Christopher Stawarz wrote:
> On May 7, 2008, at 4:20 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
> > 2008/5/7 Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> With your solution it seems that writing middlewares will not
> >> became more
> >> easy.
> >
> > Part of what I was trying
On May 6, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Ionel Maries Cristian wrote:
- there is no support for chunked input - that would require having
support for readline in the first place,
Why is readline a requirement for chunked input? Each chunk specifies
its size, and the application receiving a chunk just k
Christopher Stawarz ha scritto:
On May 7, 2008, at 4:20 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2008/5/7 Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
With your solution it seems that writing middlewares will not became
more
easy.
Part of what I was trying to say was that this needn't be exposed to
middlewares,
On May 7, 2008, at 4:20 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2008/5/7 Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
With your solution it seems that writing middlewares will not
became more
easy.
Part of what I was trying to say was that this needn't be exposed to
middlewares, unless it has to be. It was effe
2008/5/7 Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
>
>
>
> > 2008/5/7 Christopher Stawarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > On May 5, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > If write() isn't to be returned by start_response(), then do away with
> >
Ionel Maries Cristian ha scritto:
This is a very interesting initiative.
However there are few problems:
- there is no support for chunked input - that would require having
support for readline in the first place, also, it should be the
gateway's business decoding the chunked input.
Unfortu
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
2008/5/7 Christopher Stawarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On May 5, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
If write() isn't to be returned by start_response(), then do away with
start_response() if possible as per discussions for WSGI 2.0.
I think start_response() i
This is a very interesting initiative.
However there are few problems:
- there is no support for chunked input - that would require having support
for readline in the first place, also, it should be the gateway's business
decoding the chunked input.
- the original wsgi spec somewhat has some suppo
2008/5/7 Christopher Stawarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On May 5, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
>
> > If write() isn't to be returned by start_response(), then do away with
> > start_response() if possible as per discussions for WSGI 2.0.
>
> I think start_response() is necessary, becau
On May 6, 2008, at 6:17 AM, Manlio Perillo wrote:
I'm glad to know that there are some other people interested in
asynchronous application, do you have seen my extensions to WSGI in
my module for Nginx?
Yes, I have, and I had your module in mind as a potential provider of
the AWSGI interf
On May 5, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
If write() isn't to be returned by start_response(), then do away with
start_response() if possible as per discussions for WSGI 2.0.
I think start_response() is necessary, because the application may
need to yield for I/O readiness (e.g. t
Christopher Stawarz ha scritto:
(I'm new to the list, so please forgive me for making my first post a
specification proposal :)
Browsing through the list archives, I see there's been some
inconclusive discussions on adding better support for asynchronous web
servers to the WSGI spec. Since such
2008/5/6 Christopher Stawarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (I'm new to the list, so please forgive me for making my first post a
> specification proposal :)
>
> Browsing through the list archives, I see there's been some
> inconclusive discussions on adding better support for asynchronous web
> server
(I'm new to the list, so please forgive me for making my first post a
specification proposal :)
Browsing through the list archives, I see there's been some
inconclusive discussions on adding better support for asynchronous web
servers to the WSGI spec. Since such support would be very useful for
18 matches
Mail list logo
