> 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.
Correct me if I'm wrong. WSGI is great on paper and almost great in daily use. One of this peculiarities in the "middleware extension pattern", which has to foster reuse and spread of middleware doing (I hope) one thing and doing right. AFAIK most of the middleware out there are not written thinking about async at all. I don't see Twisted developers crying out loud begging people to write async middlewares and never block. Don't take it the wrong way but what's the point in fighting so hard for WSGI when there's plenty of ways to just ignore it? I know that my statement will upset someone but I think the idea of two separate web standard is great. It's too late to force in async in the WSGI world and you, with your twisted expertise, should now that writing async is hard and asking everyone to not block is even harder (that's why even Twisted Matrix has callInThread and something like that). _______________________________________________ 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