Hello,
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if the gateway doesn't support
applications that return write() callables, then it's not WSGI.
A callable that raises an exception does not even count. It's obvious
that they must not raise exceptions -- Then what's the point of
providing the callab
J.D. Main wrote:
I want to see the entire HTTP request with everything inside it.
You won't get that as a CGI (or WSGI) application. It is the web
server's job to parse the headers of the request, choose what host and
script that maps to, and make them available to you (in the environ
dicti
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>
> By the way, as a matter of curiosity.
> WSGI 1.0 states:
>
> """The start_response callable must return a write(body_data) callable
> that takes one positional parameter: a string to be written as part of
> the HTTP response body. (Note: th
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> On 9 April 2010 22:15, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
>>> [...]
But since the write callable **can** be implemented in a middleware
(using greenlets) and since middlewares *can* be configured inside WSGI
gateway, implementations
On 9 April 2010 22:15, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
>> [...]
>>> But since the write callable **can** be implemented in a middleware
>>> (using greenlets) and since middlewares *can* be configured inside WSGI
>>> gateway, implementations can still claim to be WSGI 1.0 confo
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> [...]
>> But since the write callable **can** be implemented in a middleware
>> (using greenlets) and since middlewares *can* be configured inside WSGI
>> gateway, implementations can still claim to be WSGI 1.0 conformant.
>
> Then only the higher level middleware ad
On 9 April 2010 21:29, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
>> [...]
>>> - the name will be 'wsgiorg.suspend' instead of 'wsgi.pause_output'
>>>
>>> The wsgiorg namespace is used, since the plan is to have it
>>> standardized [1], but it can only be implemented on asyn
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> [...]
>>- the name will be 'wsgiorg.suspend' instead of 'wsgi.pause_output'
>>
>> The wsgiorg namespace is used, since the plan is to have it
>> standardized [1], but it can only be implemented on asynchronous
>> servers.
>
> Please read:
>
> ht
On 9 April 2010 21:00, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> I have started to write an asynchronous WSGI implementation for Twisted Web.
>
> The standard implementation execute the WSGI application in a separate
> thread.
> twsgi will instead execute the application in the main Twisted thread.
>
> The advantag
I have started to write an asynchronous WSGI implementation for Twisted Web.
The standard implementation execute the WSGI application in a separate
thread.
twsgi will instead execute the application in the main Twisted thread.
The advantage is that twsgi is better integrated in Twisted, and WSGI
10 matches
Mail list logo
