[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0

Manlio Perillo 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 
>> named
>> >> 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 
> multi-process.
> 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 mailing list