[Web-SIG] Re: Bill's comments on WSGI draft 1.4
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Mon Sep 6 15:43:24 CEST 2004
At 04:15 PM 9/2/04 -0700, Bill Janssen wrote:
> > There's no crippling, it [streaming] is specifically allowed for. It's
> not the
> > primary interface that frameworks require, so Phillip wants to encourage
> > those framework to use the iterable when they can.
>Why? Why is an editorial opinion in the technology spec?
Why do you think it's a technology spec? I thought I was previously quite
clear on this list that PEP 333 is "an attempt at market manipulation by
social engineering mind control" (or something to that general effect), so
that puts editorial opinion well within its scope, IMO. :)
> And, which
>frameworks are you talking about? Isn't this on the "server" or
>"socket" side of things, rather than the "application" or "plug" or
>"framework" side of things?
Ian was speaking of application frameworks. Specifically, we wish to
discourage use of 'write()' because it's "bad citizenship" for an
application to hog the thread it's running in. Being iterable allows the
server to control multitasking better, and thus improve the server's
overall throughput. While 'write()' has to be available to support legacy
streaming API's, it's not at all efficient for the typical asynchronous web
server written in Python.
More information about the Web-SIG