Thanks graham. I didn't realize how unsupported websockets are right now. I guess this will become more documented as the spec get more solidified
On Apr 19, 5:58 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20 April 2010 10:13, Graham Dumpleton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 April 2010 03:16, TheIvIaxx <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry if this was already mentioned, but is there any info on using > >> web sockets with mod_wsgi? Google had released a pywebsockets app for > >> mod_pythonhttp://code.google.com/p/pywebsocket/. If this is already > >> possible with mod_wsgi, can someone point me in the right direction? > > > Obviously someones 20% time project in Google. > > > Really don't understand why they would want to bind it to mod_python. > > The way they hook it into mod_python is even questionable as they hook > > into the header parser phase when I cant see any good reason why this > > couldn't have been done in more conventional ways. > > > Anyway, it is really hard to tell as there is zero documentation in > > their wiki about what it is all about and how to use it. > > > I would perhaps suggest you log an enhancement request in their issue > > tracker to provide a WSGI compliant solution. You don't even have to > > mention mod_wsgi as that is just one WSGI implementation and what they > > provide should work on any WSGI hosting mechanism. > > Actually, looking a bit deeper, I wouldn't even bother asking them to > support WSGI as they are too rooted into the bowels of Apache. In one > part of code it says: > > """Message related utilities. > > Note: request.connection.write/read are used in this module, even though > mod_python document says that they should be used only in connection handlers. > Unfortunately, we have no other options. For example, request.write/read are > not suitable because they don't allow direct raw bytes writing/reading. > """ > > So, they don't even use the standard mechanisms in Apache for reading > request content and writing a response. > > Their justification for this is: > > """request.write/read are not suitable because they don't allow direct > raw bytes writing/reading.""" > > I don't know what they are doing, but that isn't entirely accurate. > > The only aspect of raw bytes that isn't preserved is chunked transfer > encoding. This is a HTTP layer thing and not an application layer. > > Thus, the only reason for them operating at connection layer is if > they need to process chunked transfer encoding blocks directly for > some reason and I cant see that happening. > > Now if using normal methods for handling data, input/output filters > can change data as passed through, but this is the exception and those > filters don't need to be configured. > > So, right now I am really dubious about how they have done what they > have done and still cant see a valid reason for it. > > Graham > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "modwsgi" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en.
