[Web-SIG] Re: Latest WSGI Draft (Phillip J. Eby)
ianb at colorstudy.com
Wed Aug 25 06:46:36 CEST 2004
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> I believe you also have to close the GzipFile, as it won't flush its
>> final output until that happens. So the finally block has to include
>> that as well. That makes finish_response a bit less of a win. And
>> again, map is clever but something of an abuse of the function, and
>> not appropriate for any example code.
> Abuse of the function? That's what map() is *for*: to apply a function
> to each item in a sequence. It's more compact and to the point than a
> list comprehension when all you're doing is applying a single function
> to a sequence of single arguments. Perhaps I should also blame this on
> my imaginary Lisp background, where map is considered a primitive. :)
> (Actually, it's my 7 years of Python showing, since 'map()' was king
> before the advent of listcomps.)
Map (and list comprehensions) imply you are doing something with the
results, but you aren't, you just want to throw the results away.
>>> For the given application, it's not important. Gzipping a server
>>> push stream probably doesn't make a lot of sense. :)
>> How so?
> Don't the subsequent responses have their own headers and transfer
> encodings? (By server push I mean a multipart response, which is also
> the main scenario for calling write() more than once or yielding more
> than one value and wanting the data to be immediately flushed.
Oh, now I'm confused. By push I just meant where the application pushes
data to the server (the write callable) vs. the case where the server
pulls from the application (the iterable).
Ian Bicking / ianb at colorstudy.com / http://blog.ianbicking.org
More information about the Web-SIG