On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:58 PM, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Robert Collins > <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > > So I propose we drop the write callable, and include a queue based > > implementation in the adapter for PEP-3333 code. > > If you're dropping write(), then you might as well drop > start_response() altogether, and replace it with returning a (status, > headers, body-iterator) tuple, as in wsgi_lite ( > https://github.com/pjeby/wsgi_lite ) or as found in other languages' > versions of WSGI. (start_response+write was only ever needed in order > to support legacy apps, so other languages never bothered.) > > wsgi_lite has a couple of other protocol extensions, namely the > 'wsgi_lite.closing' environment key, flagging callables' supported > WSGI version (for transparent interop), and the argument binding > protocol, but for the most part these are orthogonal to the calling > schema. I would suggest, however, that the calling protocol be > flagged in some way to allow easier interop. > I quite like the idea of always returning an iterator for the body it would simplify the code a lot... About returning the status and other thing, I quite agree, but imo we also need to return an extra parameter where the application or the middleware could maintain a state or something like it. Thoughts? - benoit > _______________________________________________ > Web-SIG mailing list > Web-SIG@python.org > Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/bchesneau%40gmail.com >
_______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com