Re: re-thinking middleware

I agree with Simon on both counts. We do usually continue to test deprecated code paths until they are removed, but I also think the duplication in cases of tests overriding MIDDLEWARE_CLASSES might not be necessary in _all_ cases; I think some discretion could be used depending on to what extent

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: > > On 05/06/2016 02:31 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Carl Meyer > > wrote: > > > > On 05/06/2016 01:56 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > User

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: > On 05/06/2016 01:56 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > User level code would not be handling WebSockets asynchronously, that > > would be left up to the web server (which would call the user level code > > using deferToThread each

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

On 05/06/2016 01:56 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > User level code would not be handling WebSockets asynchronously, that > would be left up to the web server (which would call the user level code > using deferToThread each time a websocket frame comes in). Basically > similar to what’s happening now,

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

> On 06 May 2016, at 21:56, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> On May 6, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Aymeric Augustin >> > > wrote: >> >> Sure, this works for WSGI, but barring significant changes to Django, it >>

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

> On May 6, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Aymeric Augustin > wrote: > > Sure, this works for WSGI, but barring significant changes to Django, it > doesn’t make it convenient to handle WSGI synchronously and WebSockets > asynchronously with the same code base, let

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

> On 06 May 2016, at 19:59, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> On May 6, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Andrew Godwin > > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Donald Stufft > > wrote: >> >> So

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

> On May 6, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Want to just cover a few more things I didn't in my reply to Aymeric. > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Donald Stufft > wrote: > > In short, I think that the message bus

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

Want to just cover a few more things I didn't in my reply to Aymeric. On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > In short, I think that the message bus adds an additional layer of > complexity > that makes everything a bit more complex and complicated for very

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

On 05/06/2016 11:09 AM, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > I think it's important to keep a straightforward WSGI backend in case we crack > this problem and build an async story that depends on asyncio after dropping > support for Python 2. > > I don't think merging channels as it currently stands hinders

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Aymeric Augustin < aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > Hello Donald, all, > > Some thoughts inline below. > > > On 06 May 2016, at 18:11, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > > For an example, in traditional HTTP servers where you have an open >

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Hi Andrew, Replying off-list just to say that I totally understand your frustration here, and I wish I weren't contributing to it :( I hope I'm managing to speak my mind without being an asshole about it, and I hope you'd tell me if I failed. Really glad Jacob stepped up on the DEP; I was

Re: Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

Hello Donald, all, Some thoughts inline below. > On 06 May 2016, at 18:11, Donald Stufft wrote: > > For an example, in traditional HTTP servers where you have an open connection > associated with whatever view code you're running whenever the client > disconnects you're given

Thoughts on ASGI or Why I don't see myself ever wanting to use ASGI

Let me just start out saying that I think that ASGI is reasonably designed for the pattern that it is attempting to produce. That being said, I am of the belief that the fundamental way that ASGI is designed to work misses the mark for the kind of feature that people should be using in the general

Re: My Take on Django Channels

> On May 6, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Mark Lavin wrote: > > Ryan, > > Sorry if you felt I was ignoring your reply to focus on the discussion with > Andrew. You both made a lot of the same points at about the same time but I > did want to touch on a couple things. I totally get

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Ryan, Sorry if you felt I was ignoring your reply to focus on the discussion with Andrew. You both made a lot of the same points at about the same time but I did want to touch on a couple things. On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:21:59 PM UTC-4, Ryan Hiebert wrote: > > Thank you, Mark, for

Re: My Take on Django Channels

Yes I agree that we do want different things and have different goals. There is nothing wrong with coming to a state of respectful disagreement. I'm glad that some of the feedback could be helpful and I hope it can be incorporated into Channels. As for a DEP, that would be nice and I'd love to