Graham Dumpleton ha scritto: > On 08/10/2007, Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: >>> At 01:02 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: >>>> Supporting "legacy" and "huge" WSGI applications is not really a >>>> priority for me. >>> Then you should really make it clear to your users that your Nginx >>> module does not support WSGI. The entire point of WSGI is to allow >>> "legacy" (i.e. already-written applications) to be portable across >>> servers. Something that doesn't run existing WSGI apps is clearly not >>> WSGI. >>> >> [Here I respond to the latest post of Graham, too.] >> >> Right, but actually nginx mod_wsgi *can* execute every WSGI application >> in a *conforming* way (I'm completing full support for WSGI 2.0, and >> after this I will implement WSGI 1.0). >> >> Of course some classes of WSGI applications runs *better* if they don't >> block the nginx process loop too much, so that nginx can serve multiple >> requests at the same time. >> >> It is simply a matter of optimized execution. > > Do note that there only exists WSGI 1.0. There is no such thing as > WSGI 2.0 as yet and you shouldn't really assume that the list of > proposed ideas for discussion will actually end up producing anything > that looks like what is described. All you can really do at present is > implement WSGI 1.0, anything else is not WSGI and certainly not WSGI > 2.0. >
Right, and in the nginx mod_wsgi README I explicitly write that the current version is implementing the WSGI *draft*. The reason I'm implementing the WSGI 2.0 draft is that it allows a more simple code flow. > Graham > 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
