[Web-SIG] Web Container Interface
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Thu Jan 29 13:00:50 EST 2004
At 10:15 PM 1/28/04 -0500, Jacob Smullyan wrote:
>I'd be happier, therefore, if the
>specification mandated more explicitly that the container must
>actually respect the semantics of flush() -- that flush() may be a
>no-op if output is unbuffered, but it may not be a no-op if it is not.
>This means that output, for instance, could not be a StringIO object
>the contents of which the container blits back to the client after
This does mean that gateways that perform header parsing (i.e. gateways
built into webservers) will need a StringIO subclass. But that doesn't
seem like too terrible of a burden.
I think we need to specify that flush()ed output is not guaranteed to be
sent to the client unless the service has sent all of its headers
already. Then, header-parsing gateways can force output to be buffered
until they have seen the headers.
More information about the Web-SIG