On May 5, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
If write() isn't to be returned by start_response(), then do away with start_response() if possible as per discussions for WSGI 2.0.
I think start_response() is necessary, because the application may need to yield for I/O readiness (e.g. to read the request body, as in my example app) before it decides what response status and headers to send.
Also take note of: http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Amendments_1.0 and think about how Python 3.0 would affect things.
OK, will do.
I'd also rather it not be called AWSGI as not sufficient distinct from WSGI. If you want to pursue this asynchronous style, then be more explicitly and call it ASYNC-WSGI and use 'asyncwsgi' tag in environ.
Good point. It'd be easy to type "wsgi" when you meant "awsgi", or vice versa. But I think I'd prefer "wsgi_async" to "asyncwsgi".
Thanks, Chris _______________________________________________ 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
