[Web-SIG] wsgiref questions

[Robert Brewer]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Hm, but what would you do with a response not
> in that list that didn't have a content-length?
> You'd have to close the persistent connection.
> We're committed to keep the persistent connection
> open at all times because there's a special
> Googly thing at the other end.

Fair enough. In the case of responses that are required to have no response body, you don't have to close the connection (that's actually a higher-order rule in determining length, see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4.4 point 1). But I can see the benefit to chunking over closing. Thanks for the suggestion.


Robert Brewer
System Architect
Amor Ministries
fumanchu at amor.org

On 12/21/06, Robert Brewer <fumanchu at amor.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>  > We decided to add chunking encoding to our own server,
>  > it wasn't all that hard. What's the business of only
>  > doing it for certain status codes?
>
>  Less overhead if the response has no entity or a small one. In my
> experience, 200, 203 and 206 are the only ones that have large enough
> response-bodies to bother. And since there's no spec for a WSGI app to tell
> a WSGI server to chunk (because chunking support isn't mandatory), it seemed
> best for a generic server.
>
>
>  Robert Brewer
>  System Architect
>  Amor Ministries
>  fumanchu at amor.org


-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/attachments/20061221/264febdb/attachment.htm