> Hello guys, > > I would like to initiate again discussion about supporting HTTP2 router as > SPDY cannot be used and HTTP2 is missing. I guess there was previously > some > talk about this, but I think there was lack of interest. > > If there will be more interest > we were thinking, we could ask developers > to restart work on this and if we could also try to make some funding > project for this. > > Reason, why we want this is that having NGINX makes our stack more > complicated and I really do not like that for each feature I need another > service. > > Also this could make uWSGI more interesting option again and make it more > promising for users. > > -- > Regards, > > Zdenek > Web: www.pripravto.cz > _______________________________________________ >
Hi, yes the SPDY code is basically useless (note to me and Riccardo: time to remove it ;), and i constantly underestimate how many users runs the http/fast routers. HTTP/2 (albeit based on SPDY) is pretty different, and implementing it in a solid way would require lot of manpower. If some company want to sponsor its development (like Lincoln Loop with the pyuwsgi stuff) can drop a mail to i...@unbit.it. Just as a side note, all of the new features (or massive refactoring) of the uWSGI code in the last 3 years have been sponsored by various companies while Unbit simply manages commercial support. This is why the release cycle slowed down. Personally my focus now (with now > 1 year :) is on asyncio (it is not a mistery i have never been a fan of the WSGI standard), but i am still not sure a cooperation with asyncio and uWSGI can be made without heavily refactoring uWSGI itself. Thanks -- Roberto De Ioris http://unbit.com _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list uWSGI@lists.unbit.it http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
