On 10 March 2016 at 13:34, Andrew Godwin <and...@aeracode.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > As some of you may know, I've been working over the past few months to bring > native WebSocket support to Django, via a project codenamed "Django > Channels" - this is mostly the reason I've been involved in recent WSGI > discussions. > > I'm personally of the opinion that WSGI works well for HTTP, with a few > improvements we can roll into a 1.1, but that we also need something else > that can support WebSockets and other future web protocols (e.g. WebRTC > components). > > To that end, I did some work to make the underlying mechanism Django > Channels uses into more of a standard, which I have codenamed ASGI; while > initially I intended for it to be a Django documented API, as I've gone > further with the project I've come to believe it could be useful to the > Python community at large.
I realise this may sound bikesheddy, but it would be really good to not call it ASGI. From your docs " Despite the name of the proposal, ASGI does not specify or design to any specific in-process async solution, such as asyncio, twisted, or gevent. Instead, the receive_many function can be switched between nonblocking or synchronous. This approach allows applications to choose what’s best for their current runtime environment; further improvements may provide extensions where cooperative versions of receive_many are provided." I'm worried that folk will assume a parallel between ASGI and asyncio, but there appears to be none... which is only a problem due to the room for confusion. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hpe.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ 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