At 07:53 PM 10/4/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: >Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: > > At 06:58 PM 10/4/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: > >> But why you are against adding a new environ value (not necessary named > >> wsgi.asynchronous), that will explicitly state if the WSGI server will > >> interleave the WSGI application? > > > > Why do you think it's useful? > >For the same reason you think wsgi.multiprocess is useful.
Actually, I don't think it's all that useful; IIRC, it was added as a compromise to the spec, to fend off a proposal for a more complex server-capabilities API. :) Also, there's an important difference between your proposed addition and the multiprocess/multithread flags, which is that there existed frameworks that could be ported to WSGI that only supported one model or the other. I.e., frameworks that could only run multi-threaded, or only multi-process. In other words, those flags were to support legacy frameworks detecting that they were in an incompatible hosting environment. However, IIUC, there is no such existing framework that could meaningfully use the flag you're proposing, that has any real chance of being portable to different WSGI environments. _______________________________________________ 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
