[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0
manlio_perillo at libero.it
Fri Oct 5 17:14:02 CEST 2007
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> 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
>> > 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?
Ok, here is more useful definition.
If wsgi.asynchronous evaluates to true, then the WSGI application *will*
be executed into the server main process cycle and thus the application
execution *will* be interleaved (since this is the only way to support
multiple concurrent requests).
Regards Manlio Perillo
More information about the Web-SIG