Graham Dumpleton ha scritto: > Let me get this right. You are complaining that the WSGI 2.0 would > break your non standard extension which was never a part of the WSGI > 1.0 specification to begin with. >
No, you are wrong. WSGI *allows* an implementation to develope extensions. I'm complaining that WSGI 2.0 will break support for truly-async web apps. > I also find it interesting that in the very early days you were > pushing very very hard for WSGI 2.0 to be specified and you had no > intention of even supporting WSGI 1.0 style interface. Now things seem > to be the complete opposite. > First of all, in the early days I had very little experience with WSGI and Nginx internals. Moreover, as I can remember, I have never said that I was not going to support WSGI 1.0. I have started with an implementation of WSGI 2.0 because it was more "easy" to implement and it allowed me (with little experience at that time) to have a working implementation as soon as possible. > Anyway, your complaint seems to resolve around: > > """An asynchronous application is simply impossible to develope with the > current draft of WSGI 2.0, since I need to send the headers after some > steps in the application iterator.""" > Right. > You probably need to explain the second half of that sentence a bit > better. From memory the WSGI 1.0 specification says that for an > iterable, the headers should be sent upon the generation of the first > non empty string being yielded. How does what you are doing relate to > that, are you not doing that? Why would WSGI 2.0 necessarily be any > different and cause a problem? > See the response from Phillip J. Eby. > Graham > 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