On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Armin Ronacher <armin.ronac...@active-4.com> wrote: > Why would it be good to encourage async applications on top of WSGI? > Because people would otherwise come up with their own implementations > that are incompatible to each other. Maybe that should not go into WSGI > but a AWSGI or whatever, but I'm pretty sure we should at least consider > it and ask people that use asynchronous applications/servers what the > issues with WSGI are.
I think AWSGI would be most appropriate. There's too much going on, and trying to keep WSGI sane while allowing async is just too hard. If we fork, then people can get something that really works well, they can try it out with real applications, and then maybe we can look at something we know works and see if AWSGI/WSGI differences can be resolved to bring it back into one spec. And indeed it's quite possible at the library level that AWSGI could be supported by other libraries; I'm guessing for instance that WebOb would just require a few checks around the request body, and probably the response would work relatively fine (but for many patterns a normal response object would not be sufficient in an async context -- but that's fine too). -- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org | http://topplabs.org/civichacker _______________________________________________ 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