On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Armin Ronacher <armin.ronac...@active-4.com> wrote: > Ian Bicking schrieb: >> What's wrong with this simpler approach to the conversion? > It buffers, you can no longer do this: > > request.write('processing data') > request.flush() > ... > request.write('data processed') > request.flush() > > But that's not too common and people should rather rewrite their > applications to use generators for these cases.
Yes -- I don't think many (any?) people use this particular technique, though many people use the start_response writer simply because it was there and it seemed like a good idea. I even used it a few times because it was easier to code for some circumstances (e.g., paste.cgiapp) but not because I expected it would immediately be pushed to the client. (appengine's webapp framework uses it a lot, not entirely sure why; not for streaming though -- maybe because it pushes the bytes out of the Python interpreter and into the parent process faster) So, I'm just saying we need to handle the start_response writer, because people have used it, but I'm not aware of people using it for its intended purpose. -- 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