On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Masklinn <maskl...@masklinn.net> wrote:
> 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. > Masklinn, those are pretty strong words (bordering on offensive). I'm sure Alice has a different opinion. Alice, hopefully you can write down your ideas for all to see? Perhaps you have an implementation too? Maybe seeing a concrete proposal will help us all see how big or small of a shoehorn will be needed. (Just trying to keep this thread from degenerating into a shouting match.) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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
