On 22 September 2014 00:08, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
On 21 September 2014 16:43, Roberto De Ioris robe...@unbit.it wrote:
I've proposed using github issues instead of documents; we can
synthesis the issues into prose in the draft docs and reference code
itself. I think
So HTTP/2.0 (http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html) is far
advanced, and my puny google-fu cannot find any upstream work on
making a) updating and or replacing WSGI to support HTTP/2's new
capabilities or b) an HTTP/2 capable SimplerServer or similar
reference server in the standard
On 20/09/2014, at 3:49 PM, Roberto De Ioris robe...@unbit.it wrote:
I can help a bit (i am the uWSGI lead developer and a nginx and Cherokee
contributor, and i have already implemented a spdy3 server last year)
I honestly think that WSGI by itself needs a complete rewrite/rethink to
be
Hi,
I would prefer to have this work being done transparently. If we do it
rationally it could work imo.
Anyway before thinking to change the protocol or criticizing it maybe we
could first collect the requirements in HTTP 2 (stream and such) so we can
think about possible implementations. And
On 20 September 2014 18:31, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/09/2014, at 3:49 PM, Roberto De Ioris robe...@unbit.it wrote:
I can help a bit (i am the uWSGI lead developer and a nginx and Cherokee
contributor, and i have already implemented a spdy3 server last year)
I
On 20 September 2014 19:14, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I would prefer to have this work being done transparently. If we do it
rationally it could work imo.
Anyway before thinking to change the protocol or criticizing it maybe we
could first collect the requirements in
On 20 September 2014 08:23, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
I will happily discuss stuff with you off-list, but I'm not
particularly interested in having the primary effort be cabal style -
HTTP/2 has managed to go through a much harder rev with very strong
personalities and
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Robert Collins
robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
Well, thats certainly a challenge :). Whats the governance model here?
Is a PEP appropriate, and if so - that gives us a BFDL or BFDL
PEP-delegate to decide between bikeshed issues; and if its not a
bikeshed issue
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Robert Collins
robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
Well, thats certainly a challenge :). Whats the governance model here?
Is a PEP appropriate, and if so - that gives us a BFDL or BFDL
got an idea. What about having a page collecting feedback from anyone in
the python community about this topic. So we can have true data from
different perspectives: developer, library/framework author, server author.
I'm OK to collect the data from it and make a summary of it once it's done.
The
On 20 September 2014 15:17, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
1) HTTP 1.1 vs HTTP 2:
- HTTP 1.1 and HTTP2 have quite the same high level syntax (methods, uri,
headers, ...) but the way the data is transported differs. (data are sent by
frames in HTTP 2).
Yes, this is correct. *In
Hi Benoit,
I actually wonder if websockets or other asynchronous protocols should be
handled by the new WSGI SPEC. Shouldn't we just standardize the way the
socket is given to another library?
Considering the websocket connection is initiated via a HTTP request, it
would be a good idea
On 09/20/2014 02:31 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The problem with trying to overhaul WSGI is that if it is done in an open forum
like the Web-SIG it will die of a thousand cuts, as past efforts to update it
in even minor ways have suffered.
The only way that WSGI itself will ever see an
On 21 September 2014 06:15, Randy Syring ra...@thesyrings.us wrote:
I'd suggest a wsgi comments github repo.
So in the interests of getting things done and the spirit of EAFP I've
set up https://github.com/python-web-sig/wsgi-ng. Since I have no deep
history in web-sig, I'll happily hand out
I've proposed using github issues instead of documents; we can
synthesis the issues into prose in the draft docs and reference code
itself. I think this will be easier to manage than having a dozen
different comment-documents in the repo.
-Rob
I completely agree and i have already opened
On 13 September 2014 19:40, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
Is anyone interested in collaborating on an update to WSGI to support
HTTP/2's new features?
I'd be happy to help. I know extremely little about WSGI (though I'm
sure I can read up on it), but I'm pretty heavily
I'm also up to help with this. I haven't been very involved in HTTP/2
or WSGI, but I'm happy to help with both.
___
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG@python.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
So HTTP/2.0 (http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html) is far
advanced, and my puny google-fu cannot find any upstream work on
making a) updating and or replacing WSGI to support HTTP/2's new
capabilities or b) an HTTP/2 capable SimplerServer or similar
reference server in the standard library
18 matches
Mail list logo
