[Web-SIG] CherryPy WSGI server and wsgi.input.read() with no argument.
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Mar 30 02:30:37 CEST 2007
At 06:52 PM 3/29/2007 -0400, James Y Knight wrote:
>Perhaps a WSGI 1.1 fixing these issues would be a good idea?
I would personally rather see a WSGI 2.0 that also gets rid of
start_response(), write(), and perhaps adds better async support.
I suspect that the current approach to using yield boundaries to indicate
buffer flushing should be replaced with yielding an explicit flush request
object. WSGI beginners seem to think that write() and yield are like
"print" in CGI, and thus end up writing code that performs crappily on
compliant servers. In retrospect, the "server push" use case is much less
common and it's reasonable to have to do something explicit to support
it. Middleware would also be happier if it could tell when the application
really wanted to flush the output.
Combining this with some way to yield "pauses" to better support async
servers would be ideal. It would also be nice if you could cleanly adapt
WSGI 1.0 to 2.0 and vice versa, as long as you're using a reasonable subset
(i.e. a subset that doesn't care about some of the quirks we need to fix).
More information about the Web-SIG