[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0
manlio_perillo at libero.it
Mon Oct 8 13:57:59 CEST 2007
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> On 08/10/2007, Manlio Perillo <manlio_perillo at libero.it> wrote:
>> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
>>> At 01:02 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>>>> Supporting "legacy" and "huge" WSGI applications is not really a
>>>> priority for me.
>>> Then you should really make it clear to your users that your Nginx
>>> module does not support WSGI. The entire point of WSGI is to allow
>>> "legacy" (i.e. already-written applications) to be portable across
>>> servers. Something that doesn't run existing WSGI apps is clearly not
>> [Here I respond to the latest post of Graham, too.]
>> Right, but actually nginx mod_wsgi *can* execute every WSGI application
>> in a *conforming* way (I'm completing full support for WSGI 2.0, and
>> after this I will implement WSGI 1.0).
>> Of course some classes of WSGI applications runs *better* if they don't
>> block the nginx process loop too much, so that nginx can serve multiple
>> requests at the same time.
>> It is simply a matter of optimized execution.
> Do note that there only exists WSGI 1.0. There is no such thing as
> WSGI 2.0 as yet and you shouldn't really assume that the list of
> proposed ideas for discussion will actually end up producing anything
> that looks like what is described. All you can really do at present is
> implement WSGI 1.0, anything else is not WSGI and certainly not WSGI
Right, and in the nginx mod_wsgi README I explicitly write that the
current version is implementing the WSGI *draft*.
The reason I'm implementing the WSGI 2.0 draft is that it allows a more
simple code flow.
Regards Manlio Perillo
More information about the Web-SIG