[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0
manlio_perillo at libero.it
Fri Oct 5 12:41:14 CEST 2007
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> At 07:53 PM 10/4/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
>> > At 06:58 PM 10/4/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> >> But why you are against adding a new environ value (not necessary
>> >> wsgi.asynchronous), that will explicitly state if the WSGI server will
>> >> interleave the WSGI application?
>> > Why do you think it's useful?
>> For the same reason you think wsgi.multiprocess is useful.
> Actually, I don't think it's all that useful; IIRC, it was added as a
> compromise to the spec, to fend off a proposal for a more complex
> server-capabilities API. :)
> Also, there's an important difference between your proposed addition and
> the multiprocess/multithread flags, which is that there existed
> frameworks that could be ported to WSGI that only supported one model or
> the other. I.e., frameworks that could only run multi-threaded, or only
> In other words, those flags were to support legacy frameworks detecting
> that they were in an incompatible hosting environment. However, IIUC,
> there is no such existing framework that could meaningfully use the flag
> you're proposing, that has any real chance of being portable to
> different WSGI environments.
This is true, but I continue to think that it is worth adding that flag.
Asynchronous support is available in Nginx mod_wsgi, and in the future
someone can implement a WSGI gateway for lighttpd.
Regards Manlio Perillo
More information about the Web-SIG