[Web-SIG] [ANN] twsgi: asynchronous WSGI implementation for Twisted Web

[Manlio Perillo]

Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> [...]
>>    - the name will be 'wsgiorg.suspend' instead of 'wsgi.pause_output'
>>
>>      The wsgiorg namespace is used, since the plan is to have it
>>      standardized [1], but it can only be implemented on asynchronous
>>      servers.
> 
> Please read:
> 
>   http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Specifications
> 
> If a proposal is suggested, it MUST use 'x-wsgiorg.' and not
> 'wsgiorg.'. Only after it is officially accepted can it use the
> 'wsgiorg.'.
> 

Well; since the original propose was using wsgi namespace, I just
suggested the use of wsgiorg namespace instead

Of course, when it will be implemented I will use a different namespace,
until it gots approved.

> I would question whether you should even be using 'x-wsgiorg.' as as
> far as I can see from my quick scans of emails, you aren't even
> supporting WSGI proper as you are dropping support for bits. As such,
> it isn't WSGI, only WSGIish so how can you justify using the name.
> 

This is not completely correct.
The twsgi implementation, as well ngx_http_wsgi_module implementation,
does not implement the write callable.

The reason is simple: write callable was an huge mistake in WSGI 1.0
since it can not be implemented in an asynchronous web server.

But since the write callable **can** be implemented in a middleware
(using greenlets) and since middlewares *can* be configured inside WSGI
gateway, implementations can still claim to be WSGI 1.0 conformant.

> Why don't you given it all a completely different name else you will
> just cause ongoing confusion 

In don't really see how this can cause confusion!

> like you did with when you felt you could
> reuse the 'mod_wsgi' name for your nginx 

In fact the first thing I did during code refactoring was to rename it
to ngx_http_wsgi_module.

> version even though I asked
> you to use a different name. It has been an absolute pain seeing
> discussions on places like #django irc where people don't know when
> people mention mod_wsgi whether they are talking about Apache of
> nginx.
> 

Apologies for having underestimated this.


Manlio