[Web-SIG] Proposal for asynchronous WSGI variant

Christopher Stawarz cstawarz at csail.mit.edu
Tue May 6 23:37:09 CEST 2008

On May 5, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:

> If write() isn't to be returned by start_response(), then do away with
> start_response() if possible as per discussions for WSGI 2.0.

I think start_response() is necessary, because the application may  
need to yield for I/O readiness (e.g. to read the request body, as in  
my example app) before it decides what response status and headers to  

> Also take note of:
>  http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Amendments_1.0
> and think about how Python 3.0 would affect things.

OK, will do.

> I'd also rather it not be called AWSGI as not sufficient distinct from
> WSGI. If you want to pursue this asynchronous style, then be more
> explicitly and call it ASYNC-WSGI and use 'asyncwsgi' tag in environ.

Good point.  It'd be easy to type "wsgi" when you meant "awsgi", or  
vice versa.  But I think I'd prefer "wsgi_async" to "asyncwsgi".


More information about the Web-SIG mailing list