[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 12:41 PM 10/5/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> > 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.

Right now, the definition of the flag is not sufficiently defined for 
my taste.  You have only proposed that it be set to indicate that 
interleaved execution is possible -- but it is *always* possible to 
have interleaved execution in WSGI 1.0, so the only reason to add the 
flag to WSGI 2.0 would be so a server could promise NOT to interleave 
execution.  And what good is that?