On 09/10/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:23 AM 10/9/2007 +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> >On 09/10/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > At 06:25 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> > > >Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > >
At 08:23 AM 10/9/2007 +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>On 09/10/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 06:25 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> > >Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
> >
On 09/10/2007, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 06:25 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> >Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
> > > header support.
> >
> >I have just found that the WSGI spec s
At 06:25 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> > [...]
> >
> > I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
> > header support.
>
>I have just found that the WSGI spec says:
>"""...it should be clear that a server may handle cache validation
Thomas Broyer ha scritto:
> 2007/10/8, Manlio Perillo:
>> However there are two problems here:
>> 1) It is not clear if WSGI explicitly allows an implementation to skip
>>the iteration over the app_iter object, for optimization purpose
>> 2) For a WSGI implementation embedded in an existing web
2007/10/8, Manlio Perillo:
> However there are two problems here:
> 1) It is not clear if WSGI explicitly allows an implementation to skip
>the iteration over the app_iter object, for optimization purpose
> 2) For a WSGI implementation embedded in an existing webserver, the
>most convenient
2007/10/8, Manlio Perillo:
> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> > [...]
> >
> > I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
> > header support.
>
> I have just found that the WSGI spec says:
> """...it should be clear that a server may handle cache validation via
> the If-None-Mat
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> [...]
>
> I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
> header support.
I have just found that the WSGI spec says:
"""...it should be clear that a server may handle cache validation via
the If-None-Match and If-Modified-Since request header
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> On 08/10/2007, Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
>>> At 01:02 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Supporting "legacy" and "huge" WSGI applications is not really a
priority for me.
>>> Then you should really make it
On 08/10/2007, Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> > At 01:02 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> >> Supporting "legacy" and "huge" WSGI applications is not really a
> >> priority for me.
> >
> > Then you should really make it clear to your users that yo
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> At 01:02 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> Supporting "legacy" and "huge" WSGI applications is not really a
>> priority for me.
>
> Then you should really make it clear to your users that your Nginx
> module does not support WSGI. The entire point of WSGI
At 01:02 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>Supporting "legacy" and "huge" WSGI applications is not really a
>priority for me.
Then you should really make it clear to your users that your Nginx
module does not support WSGI. The entire point of WSGI is to allow
"legacy" (i.e. already-wri
Ian Bicking ha scritto:
> Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
>>> At 11:04 AM 10/6/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
As an example, the WSGI write callable cannot be implemented in a
conforming way in Nginx.
>>> ...unless you use a separate thread or process.
>>>
>>
>> I'm
13 matches
Mail list logo
