[Web-SIG] PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0

[Alice Bevan–McGregor]

On 2011-01-02 13:31:45 -0800, Guido van Rossum said:
> Masklinn, those are pretty strong words (bordering on offensive). I'm 
> sure Alice has a different opinion. Alice, hopefully you can write down 
> your ideas for all to see? Perhaps you have an implementation too? 
> Maybe seeing a concrete proposal will help us all see how big or small 
> of a shoehorn will be needed.

I will be experimenting with a futures-based async implementation in 
marrow.server.http while writing, as I have been with the draft rewrite 
so far.

> (Just trying to keep this thread from degenerating into a shouting match.)

I missed how his statements could be construed as offensive.  :/  I 
interpreted the multiple "you can't" references to be careless 
shorthand, not explicitly me, so no harm done.

On 2011-01-02 12:55:30 -0800, Masklinn said:
>> If I remember the previous Web3 discussion correctly, the result was 
>> basically that async has no business being shoehorned in WSGI, that 
>> WSGI's model is fundamentally unfit for async and you can't correctly 
>> support sync and async with the same spec, and therefore an 
>> asynchronous equivalent to WSGI should be developed separately, in 
>> order to correctly match the needs of asynchronous servers and 
>> interfaces, without the cruft and inadequacies of being forked from a 
>> synchronous gateway model.

That may have been the result of the previous discussions, however I 
belive I can both write a specification that may be acceptable to 
enough developers, and write a reference implementation illustrating 
both asynchronous and synchronous requests while remaining performant.

	- Alice.