[Web-SIG] Re: Bill's comments on WSGI draft 1.4

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 04:15 PM 9/2/04 -0700, Bill Janssen wrote:
 >[Ian Bicking]
> > 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.