[Web-SIG] Proposal for asynchronous WSGI variant

Duncan McGreggor duncan.mcgreggor at gmail.com
Wed May 7 21:35:31 CEST 2008

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 14:00 -0400, Christopher Stawarz wrote:
> On May 7, 2008, at 4:20 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> > 2008/5/7 Manlio Perillo <manlio_perillo at libero.it>:
> >> With your solution it seems that writing middlewares will not  
> >> became more
> >> easy.
> >
> > Part of what I was trying to say was that this needn't be exposed to
> > middlewares, unless it has to be. It was effectively a lower level of
> > interaction which a middleware immediately on top of the WSGI adapter
> > would use to hook into the async type model, but then present it to
> > higher levels as more traditional WSGI interface.
> That would be a really elegant solution, except, as you say:
> > That layer would
> > though obviously use something like greenlets to bridge the two.
> The problem being that greenlets aren't part of the Python language.   
> They're an extension that works by doing clever stuff with the C  
> stack.  And as much as we might wish that Python supported them  
> natively (which I do, since they're a really nice alternative to OS  
> threads), it doesn't, so I don't think they can play any role in a  
> WSGI-ASYNC spec.

It's my understanding that greenlets are python, not C. Are you thinking
of tasklets in stackless?


More information about the Web-SIG mailing list