[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Cory Benfield cory at lukasa.co.uk
Mon Jan 4 09:53:14 EST 2016

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 14:48, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we do it at all?**
>>> - Support websockets
>> - Support HTTP/2
> What does HTTP/2 support mean? What features of HTTP/2 need to be
> exposed in the wsgi api?

(CC-ing the list)

The current WSGI API does not provide any consensus method for doing server push. Such a thing could absolutely be done as an extension to WSGI in its current form, and we should consider that.

More generally, HTTP/2 is a bit more generous with what can be done with a stream than is the case in HTTP/1.1. For example, a stream could in principle be kept open indefinitely and used as a bi-directional communications channel: WSGI in its current form does not make that easy to do.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/attachments/20160104/d5ddadf4/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list