At Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:03:15 +0000 (GMT), chris dent wrote: > <snip> > On async: > > I agree with some others who have suggested that maybe async should be > its own thing, rather than integrated into a WSGI2. A server could > choose to be WSGI2 compliant or AWSGI compliant, or both. > </snip>
+1 After seeing some of the ideas regarding how to add async into a new version of WSGI, it isn't the specific problem the async feature addresses in terms of WSGI servers. Is the goal is to support long running connections? Are we trying to support WebSockets and other long running connection interfaces? If that is the case, async is a *technique* for handling this paradigm, but it doesn't address the real problem. There are techniques that have sounded reasonable like making available the socket such that a server can give it to the application to do something use with it (here is an example doing something similar with CherryPy - http://trac.defuze.org/browser/oss/ws4cp/ws4cp.py). Just to summarize, I'm for making async something else while finding a way to support long running connections in WSGI outside of adopting a particular technique a potentially viable goal. Just my $.02 on the issue. Eric Larson _______________________________________________ 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
