On 2011-01-02, at 21:38 , Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
> On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
>>> I'd suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until we
>>> reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't address.
> Async is one area that 3333 does not cover, and that by not having a standard
> which incorporates async means competing, incompatible solutions have been
> created.
>
If I remember the previous Web3 discussion correctly, the result was basically
that async has no business being shoehorned in WSGI, that WSGI's model is
fundamentally unfit for async and you can't correctly support sync and async
with the same spec, and therefore an asynchronous equivalent to WSGI should be
developed separately, in order to correctly match the needs of asynchronous
servers and interfaces, without the cruft and inadequacies of being forked from
a synchronous gateway model.
_______________________________________________
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
