On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:28:42 +1300
Robert Collins
wrote:
> On 15 October 2014 11:10, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> > Each time a connection is accepted, protocol_factory is called without
> > arguments(**) to create a Protocol, a bidirectional stream Transport is
> > created to represent the network
On 15 October 2014 11:10, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Each time a connection is accepted, protocol_factory is called without
> arguments(**) to create a Protocol, a bidirectional stream Transport is
> created to represent the network side of the connection, and the two
> are tied together by calling
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:48:37 +1300
Robert Collins
wrote:
> On 15 October 2014 10:04, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> ...
> > (that's for the HTTP part; a websockets layer would probably implement
> > a separate transport and accept a separate protocol factory; actually,
> > it could be implemented as a p
On 15 October 2014 10:04, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
...
> (that's for the HTTP part; a websockets layer would probably implement
> a separate transport and accept a separate protocol factory; actually,
> it could be implemented as a protocol that would parse the websockets
> protocol and provide its o
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:22:28 +1300
Robert Collins
wrote:
> >
> > You may have misunderstood me. I am talking about the Transport and
> > Protocol abstractions defined in PEP 3156.
>
> Lets assume I did. Given say nginx + uwsgi + asyncio, you're proposing
> that there be a uwsgi-asyncio module tha
On 15 October 2014 08:41, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:40:05 +1300
> Robert Collins
> wrote:
>> On 15 October 2014 07:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:47:35 -0700
>> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm wondering if a small extension to the WSGI proto
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:40:05 +1300
Robert Collins
wrote:
> On 15 October 2014 07:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:47:35 -0700
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if a small extension to the WSGI protocol might be sufficient
> >> to support this: the special en
On 15 October 2014 07:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:47:35 -0700
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering if a small extension to the WSGI protocol might be sufficient
>> to support this: the special environ variable "wsgi.async_input" could
>> optionally be tied to a sta
On 15 October 2014 08:01, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
>
>
> 2014-10-14 20:57 GMT+02:00 Justin Holmes :
>>
>> To me, asyncio already provides a de-facto standard API for
>> asynchronous backends and Tornado/Twisted provide a high level API on
>> top of it. I have to say, I don't precisely grasp wha
2014-10-14 20:57 GMT+02:00 Justin Holmes :
> To me, asyncio already provides a de-facto standard API for
> asynchronous backends and Tornado/Twisted provide a high level API on
> top of it. I have to say, I don't precisely grasp what WSGI actually
> wishes to bring to the table.
>
> I guess if we'
To me, asyncio already provides a de-facto standard API for
asynchronous backends and Tornado/Twisted provide a high level API on
top of it. I have to say, I don't precisely grasp what WSGI actually
wishes to bring to the table.
I guess if we're really talking about this, the lowest common
denomin
Hi,
2014-10-14 18:47 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
>
>
> I'm wondering if a small extension to the WSGI protocol might be
> sufficient to support this: the special environ variable "wsgi.async_input"
> could optionally be tied to a standard asyncio stream reader (
> https://docs.python.org/3/libra
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:47:35 -0700
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if a small extension to the WSGI protocol might be sufficient
> to support this: the special environ variable "wsgi.async_input" could
> optionally be tied to a standard asyncio stream reader (
> https://docs.python.org/
Fascinating and exciting.
Up until now, my go-to tactic for contain WSGI inside async has been
to use the WSGI container in twisted.web (this is how hendrix works:
https://github.com/hangarunderground/hendrix).
However, if we're talking about an actual flag in WSGI (like
wsgi.async_input), this i
I am fascinated by the new WSGI - HTTP/2 discussions. I don't have much to
contribute, because my own experience with web development is either very
old (when CGI was new and exciting) or uses corporate frameworks where
there's a huge set of layers between the app code and the external network
(e.g
15 matches
Mail list logo
