At 05:14 PM 10/5/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: >Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: > > At 12:41 PM 10/5/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: > >> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: > >> > 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. > >> > >> This is true, but I continue to think that it is worth adding that flag. > >> Asynchronous support is available in Nginx mod_wsgi, and in the future > >> someone can implement a WSGI gateway for lighttpd. > > > > Right now, the definition of the flag is not sufficiently defined for my > > taste. You have only proposed that it be set to indicate that > > interleaved execution is possible -- but it is *always* possible to have > > interleaved execution in WSGI 1.0, so the only reason to add the flag to > > WSGI 2.0 would be so a server could promise NOT to interleave > > execution. And what good is that? > > > >Ok, here is more useful definition. > >If wsgi.asynchronous evaluates to true, then the WSGI application *will* >be executed into the server main process cycle and thus the application >execution *will* be interleaved (since this is the only way to support >multiple concurrent requests).
I still don't see how this is *useful*. What will the application *do* with this information? _______________________________________________ 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