Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: > At 04:48 PM 10/4/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: >> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: >> > [...] >> > >> > WSGI 2.0 does not have a start_response() callable in the first place, >> > so none of these apply. >> > >> >> I thought that the current WSGI 2.0 draft was only, indeed, a draft. > > That's correct. But eliminating start_response() and write() is really > the main point of *having* a WSGI 2.0. >
For me, what's needs to be elimitated is write() and the exc_info in start_response. > >> > It's always the case that a WSGI application can be paused after it >> > yields data, even in WSGI 1.0. >> >> I was not aware of this. >> It may cause some problems to a unaware WSGI application the fact that a >> new "handler" is started "interleaved" with the previous ones. > > It may... but the only applications that should be yielding anything are > ones that are sending large files, doing server push, or explicitly > *desire* to be interleaved in such fashion. > But they have no way to know if the server supports this, and existing WSGI implementations does not interleave the iteration, as far as I know. > If your app isn't in one of those categories, you should just be > yielding a single string to begin with. Regards Manlio Perillo _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
