Luis,
I think what Alex and Aymeric are saying is that "websockets" (I use
quotes to show that I mean not only the material outlined in RFC 6455
but also the general process of handling bytes-on-the-wire when
'pushing' data to the 'client') are ideally not part of the problem
that Django (and WSGI
And after you throw away the ORM, you have to throw away every other
library that does blocking IO (anything in the stdlib, memcached, redis,
requests, etc.). There are absolutely no affordances in WSGI for use with
non-blocking libraries like asyncio or Twisted.
Alex
On Wed Oct 29 2014 at 1:45:5
Hi Luis,
There is some work on making a WSGI2 that would include support for http/2
and likely websockets too. That would likely need to happen first or at the
same time. https://github.com/python-web-sig/wsgi-ng
You could also check out a project called "hendrix" which supports using
websocke
Then the first step is to throw away the ORM.
See my talk at DjangoCon US 2013 for details.
--
Aymeric.
> Le 28 oct. 2014 à 23:36, Marco Paolini a écrit :
>
> What if we do it with asyncio?
>
> 2014-10-28 22:47 GMT+01:00 Aymeric Augustin
> :
>> No, there isn’t.
>>
>> I assume that “includi
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:37:15 PM UTC+1, mpaolini wrote:
>
> What if we do it with asyncio?
>
It is 3.4 only, WSGI still has no support for Websockets and the API would
change drastically…
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers
What if we do it with asyncio?
2014-10-28 22:47 GMT+01:00 Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org>:
> No, there isn’t.
>
> I assume that “including in core” means at least “making usable in
> combination with WSGI and with the ORM”.
>
> Even if we disregard for a minute the fact tha
No, there isn’t.
I assume that “including in core” means at least “making usable in combination
with WSGI and with the ORM”.
Even if we disregard for a minute the fact that WSGI is incompatible with
websockets, the ORM is a hard problem, because current solutions involve either
(a) threads — n
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 2:31:48 AM UTC-7, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
>
> 2013/4/17 Daniel Swarbrick >
>
>> On the pure Django side of things, one of the challenges I encountered
>> was "IDLE IN TRANSACTION" hanging DB connections in the long-running
>> WebSocket views. I really ought to resea
2013/4/17 Daniel Swarbrick
> On the pure Django side of things, one of the challenges I encountered was
> "IDLE IN TRANSACTION" hanging DB connections in the long-running WebSocket
> views. I really ought to research a more elegant solution to this, but for
> now I'm just doing all my DB queries
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:10:15 AM UTC+2, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
>
>
> Yes, that's why https://github.com/aaugustin/django-c10k-demo/ builds
> upon Tulip.
>
> Unfortunately, that choice makes it unsuitable for inclusion in Django
> until we drop support for Python 3.3 and all earlier vers
On 16 avr. 2013, at 23:03, Jonathan Slenders
wrote:
> Maybe it's worth noting that Guido is working on a Tulip, a specification for
> an asynchronous API in Python 3, this to get some consensus. Right now, there
> is almost zero compatibility between al the different approaches: twisted,
> to
Maybe it's worth noting that Guido is working on a Tulip, a specification
for an asynchronous API in Python 3, this to get some consensus. Right now,
there is almost zero compatibility between al the different approaches:
twisted, tornado, gevent, etc...
If we decide to go for one technology, b
Hi Ashwin -
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Ashwin Kumar wrote:
> is there any way to implement websockets in django?
> if not, any other packages to combine with django.
There are quite a few third-party apps and demos out there, so many
I've lost track. I recommending searching GitHub.
> i
13 matches
Mail list logo
