[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0
James Y Knight
foom at fuhm.net
Fri Apr 6 23:52:03 CEST 2007
On Apr 6, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Am I take this then that you believe or are proposing that WSGI 2.0
> should require that if no content length is provided in a response and
> it can' be calculated, that a WSGI adapter should ensure the web
> server uses chunked transfer encoding? Since the original point of
> this message thread was to determine what WSGI 2.0 should be, it would
> help if you are clear on what you believe should be specified by WSGI
> 2.0 in this respect.
No. I believe nothing about chunked encoding should be specified by
WSGI 2.0 (the same as is currently in WSGI 1.0). It's completely up
to the server whether and when it wants to used chunked transfer
encoding on the output. I believe that a high quality server
implementation will do what I outlined above, as a matter of course.
But other than the overhead of re-establishing a connection after a
forced-close from an undetermined-length response, there is no
difference between using chunked or not.
> I'd sooner remove the option totally and users can just put up
> with the limitation as it stands with WSGI 1.0 of not being able to
> use chunked transfer encoding.
There is no such limitation. A server can use chunked transfer
encoding whenever it wants to.
More information about the Web-SIG