At 11:04 AM 10/6/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: >As an example, the WSGI write callable cannot be implemented in a >conforming way in Nginx.
...unless you use a separate thread or process. > > If we were going to try to implement an asynchronous WSGI, what we would > > *really* need to do is discard the app_iter and make write() the > > standard way of sending the body. This would let us implement a CPS > > (continuation-passing style) API. > >But isn't this possible just using a generator? No, because using a generator means there needs to be a separate callback to force the generator to be reiterated. Hence the complexity of adding an async API to the existing WSGI model. > > We would also have to change the > > input stream so that instead of reading from it, we instead passed it > > functions to be called when input was available, > >Another possible solution is that reading from input is allowed to raise >an EAGAIN exception, like in the previous example. Which is *way* more complex than the CPS approach. If we're going to make it *harder* to write applications, there's no point to having a WSGI 2.0, since 1.0 is already hard enough to implement. :) _______________________________________________ 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
