[Web-SIG] ngx.poll extension (was Re: Are you going to convert Pylons code into Python 3000?)
manlio_perillo at libero.it
Thu Mar 6 11:12:49 CET 2008
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> Let me get this right. You are complaining that the WSGI 2.0 would
> break your non standard extension which was never a part of the WSGI
> 1.0 specification to begin with.
No, you are wrong.
WSGI *allows* an implementation to develope extensions.
I'm complaining that WSGI 2.0 will break support for truly-async web apps.
> I also find it interesting that in the very early days you were
> pushing very very hard for WSGI 2.0 to be specified and you had no
> intention of even supporting WSGI 1.0 style interface. Now things seem
> to be the complete opposite.
First of all, in the early days I had very little experience with WSGI
and Nginx internals.
Moreover, as I can remember, I have never said that I was not going to
support WSGI 1.0.
I have started with an implementation of WSGI 2.0 because it was more
"easy" to implement and it allowed me (with little experience at that
time) to have a working implementation as soon as possible.
> Anyway, your complaint seems to resolve around:
> """An asynchronous application is simply impossible to develope with the
> current draft of WSGI 2.0, since I need to send the headers after some
> steps in the application iterator."""
> You probably need to explain the second half of that sentence a bit
> better. From memory the WSGI 1.0 specification says that for an
> iterable, the headers should be sent upon the generation of the first
> non empty string being yielded. How does what you are doing relate to
> that, are you not doing that? Why would WSGI 2.0 necessarily be any
> different and cause a problem?
See the response from Phillip J. Eby.
More information about the Web-SIG