[Web-SIG] Questions/suggestions on 'wsgi.file_wrapper'
jim at zope.com
Wed Dec 21 19:06:50 CET 2005
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 11:25 AM 12/21/2005 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> Here are some questions and sugesstions on the 'wsgi.file_wrapper'
>> part of the WSGI API:
>> 1. Does this need to be optional? It seems that it would be
>> easy for any server to provide this, it would be nice for
>> applications to be able to rely in it.
> It's intentionally optional because its presence signifies that the
> server can do things *better* than the application, if and only if the
> object is a "real" operating system file or other "special" object. The
> only reason the spec requires only a "file-like" object rather than an
> object with a valid "fileno()" method, is because somebody wanted to
> support Jython objects wrapping Java sio(?) objects, for a Java
> equivalent of sendfile().
I guess I'm puzzled how the server can fail to do at least as well
as the application. Can you think of a case where an application wants to
output a file and can do better than a simple fallback iterator provided
by the server?
>> 2. If the file-like object passed has a close method, wouldn't
> If I understand your suggestion correctly, you're asking to change that
> in a way that disallows early closing, and I don't think that should be
Ah! I see. Good point. OK, I withdraw my suggestion.
>> 3. The server should be allowed to use the file wrapper in a different
>> thread than the one used to run the application. This should be
>> Applications should not return file-like objects that rely on running
>> in the same thread. This too should be noted.
> This seems reasonable to me. For the actual use cases file_wrapper was
> intended to support (sendfile() and the Java equivalent thereof) this
> should be no problem at all.
Jim Fulton mailto:jim at zope.com Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
More information about the Web-SIG