Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Graham Dumpleton
> On 20 Jan 2016, at 8:29 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:49 PM Graham Dumpleton > wrote: > >> On 20 Jan 2016, at 7:43 AM, Benoit Chesneau >

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Benoit Chesneau
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:58 PM Robert Collins wrote: > On 20 January 2016 at 05:55, Cory Benfield wrote: > > All, > > > > Thanks so much for your feedback to my original request for comments on > the future of WSGI. You provided a ton of really

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Graham Dumpleton
> On 20 Jan 2016, at 2:55 AM, Cory Benfield wrote: > > Content Lengths > ~~~ > > We should clarify in the new specification that an application that reads > beyond the logical length of the request as given by CONTENT_LENGTH will have > its reads return

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Benoit Chesneau
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:34 PM Graham Dumpleton < graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 20 Jan 2016, at 8:29 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:49 PM Graham Dumpleton < > graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 20 Jan 2016, at 7:43 AM,

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Robert Collins
On 20 January 2016 at 05:55, Cory Benfield wrote: > All, > > Thanks so much for your feedback to my original request for comments on the > future of WSGI. You provided a ton of really useful feedback: when printed > out on my printer it ended up at about 50 pages of

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Benoit Chesneau
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:49 PM Graham Dumpleton < graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 20 Jan 2016, at 7:43 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > > I will make a more complete answer soon. But about: > > >> >> Socket Escape Hatch >> ~~~ >> >> Aside from Benoit,

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Benoit Chesneau
I will make a more complete answer soon. But about: > > Socket Escape Hatch > ~~~ > > Aside from Benoit, server operators were unanimously dismissive of the > idea of a socket 'escape hatch'. In general it seems like servers would not > be capable of achieving this. I think,

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Robert Collins
On 20 January 2016 at 12:04, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > > not at all. But I made the assumption that the wsgi server maintained a > thread directly or not where the python application is running . > > In any case there is some sort of wrapping done in the same thread/process >

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Graham Dumpleton
> On 20 Jan 2016, at 8:56 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > >> REQUEST_URI environ variable >> >> >> Multiple contributors expressed an interest in bringing this environment >> variable into WSGI directly, making it a required part of the

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Graham Dumpleton
> On 20 Jan 2016, at 10:57 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > > On 20 January 2016 at 12:04, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > >> >> not at all. But I made the assumption that the wsgi server maintained a >> thread directly or not where the python application

[Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

2016-01-19 Thread Cory Benfield
All, Thanks so much for your feedback to my original request for comments on the future of WSGI. You provided a ton of really useful feedback: when printed out on my printer it ended up at about 50 pages of information that was really engaging reading. I also want to thank you all for keeping