On 2011-01-02 13:31:45 -0800, Guido van Rossum said:
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.
I will be experimenting with a futures-based async implementation in
marrow.server.http while writing, as I have been with the draft rewrite
so far.
(Just trying to keep this thread from degenerating into a shouting match.)
I missed how his statements could be construed as offensive. :/ I
interpreted the multiple "you can't" references to be careless
shorthand, not explicitly me, so no harm done.
On 2011-01-02 12:55:30 -0800, Masklinn said:
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.
That may have been the result of the previous discussions, however I
belive I can both write a specification that may be acceptable to
enough developers, and write a reference implementation illustrating
both asynchronous and synchronous requests while remaining performant.
- Alice.
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
