Christopher Stawarz ha scritto:
On May 7, 2008, at 4:20 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2008/5/7 Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
With your solution it seems that writing middlewares will not became
more
easy.
Part of what I was trying to say was that this needn't be exposed to
middlewares, unless it has to be. It was effectively a lower level of
interaction which a middleware immediately on top of the WSGI adapter
would use to hook into the async type model, but then present it to
higher levels as more traditional WSGI interface.
That would be a really elegant solution, except, as you say:
That layer would
though obviously use something like greenlets to bridge the two.
The problem being that greenlets aren't part of the Python language.
They're an extension that works by doing clever stuff with the C stack.
And as much as we might wish that Python supported them natively (which
I do, since they're a really nice alternative to OS threads), it
doesn't, so I don't think they can play any role in a WSGI-ASYNC spec.
This is not fully true, after all WSGI explicitly exposes the concept of
processes and threads (via the relative variable in the WSGI environ and
some hints in the specification) and these are not really part of the
Python Language.
Chris
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
